10 ms·
This post is a lame PR stunt, which will only add fuel to the fire. It tries to portray openAI as this great bennefactor and custodian of virtue: > “As we get
by tcgv 3y ago
This post is a lame PR stunt, which will only add fuel to the fire. It tries to portray openAI as this great bennefactor and custodian of virtue:
> “As we get closer to building AI, it will make sense to start being less open. The Open in openAI means that everyone should benefit from the fruits of AI after its built, but it's totally OK to not share the science...”
> I've seen you (and Sam and other OpenAI people) doing a lot of interviews recently extolling the virtues of open sourcing AI, but (...) There are many good arguments as to why the approach you are taking is actually very dangerous and in fact may increase the risk to the world
How lucky are we that openAI, in its infinite wisdom, has decided to shield us from harm by locking away its source code! Truly, our digital salvation rests in the hands of corporate benevolence!
It also employs outdated internal communication (selectively) to depict the other party as a pitiful loser who failed to secure openAI control and is now bent on seeking revenge:
> As we discussed a for-profit structure in order to further the mission, Elon wanted us to merge with Tesla or he wanted full control.
> Elon understood the mission did not imply open-sourcing AGI. As Ilya told Elon: “As we get closer to building AI, it will make sense to start being less open. The Open in openAI means that everyone should benefit from the fruits of AI after its built, but it's totally OK to not share the science...”, to which Elon replied: “Yup”. [4]
If their case to defend against Elon's action relies on his "Yup"from 2016, and justifications for being able to compete with Google, it's not a strong one.
- boringg 3y agoI also thought this was kind of entertaining in their method to try and tar and feather. The highly selective (much dated) e-mail comms in a very roughly packaged statement. If that's how they are trying to protect their public image it doesn't sell their position strongly if anything it makes them look worse. It looks very amateurish almost childish to be honest.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jstummbillig 3y agoAssume good intentions and nothing of substance being hidden: Is there any way to be transparent here that would have satisfied you or are you essentially asking for them to just keep to themselves or something else?
- the_mar 3y agoOh, honey. Never assume good intentions when lawyers are involved
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ncallaway 3y agoThat wasn't the point of the question. The question was a hypothetical to test if there was any possible response that would've satisfied the original poster. They're not suggesting to assume good intentions about the parties forever. They're just asking for that assumption for the purposes of the question that was asked
- rat9988 3y agoThere is no satisfying answer if your actions before are not satisfying. The question implies that the original poster cannot be satisfied, and thus shift the blame implicitly. The problem remain not what the answer is, or how it is worded. The answer only portrays the actions, which are by themselves unsatifsying.
- the_mar 3y agoThe answer is no. Companies don’t do things out of good intentions when lawsuits are involved.
- polygamous_bat 3y agoA great way to be transparent would be to admit that some enormous egos prevented work that should be open from being open, and counterfactually opening them up. Sure, it may piss off microsoft, but statistically things that piss off microsoft also has been great for the world at large. But that will never happen, will it?
- dist-epoch 3y agoSo, where is the source code of Grok, the LLM that Elon is building?
- samatman 3y agoDid Twitter become a nonprofit while I wasn't paying attention?
- bmicraft 3y agoWell, they aren't profitable to Elon at least
- Sohcahtoa82 3y agoDid Elon ever announce, or even imply, that Grok would be open source?
- shafyy 3y agoA bunch of rich people who are all full of shit pissing on each other. Nothing to see here, keep scrolling.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- thallavajhula 3y agoIn this context (Elon v. OpenAI), I don't see how this seems like a lame PR stunt. They are defending their stance against Elon's BS. He's been spewing BS over the past couple of years saying he funded them to make the open source while he's always wanted the tech for his company and always meant to make it a closed tech with the intention to compete against Google. Elon literally mentioned that OpenAI should merge with Tesla and use it as a cash cow. After reading all of this, you think OpenAI's response is a PR stunt? What about Elon's lies so far? If anything, this drama just details out Elon's hypocrisy.