4 ms·
I wish they would be at least forced to change their name. It’s like if Exxon called themselves The Free Renewable Energy Company. It’s misleading to consumers.
by dimal 2y ago
I wish they would be at least forced to change their name. It’s like if Exxon called themselves The Free Renewable Energy Company. It’s misleading to consumers. In tech, we all know it’s BS, but the average consumer might not. It seems like an argument could be made that “OpenAI” in violation of FTC truth in advertising rules.
- frou_dh 2y agoIt could be a lot more closed than it is, from a general public perspective. i.e. the company having this cool AI and we not even getting the opportunity to use it at all.
- FLT8 2y agoThey couldn't be, realistically, any more closed without being an essentially infinite money sink of the kind even nation states would struggle to fund long-term. It's the public using it that's helping offset costs and also giving them the usage data that they need to iterate on the design.
- wkat4242 2y agoUmm why would they bother developing a product if they're not selling it to customers?
- frou_dh 2y agoIt could theoretically be a B2B product only (or something else limited) and not B2C.
- wkat4242 2y agoYeah but even then it would make it to consumers through their customers. A bit like MS Copilot for Bing / Windows which is really just rebranded ChatGPT. For the O365 version they added a lot of stuff to interact with office but their online chatbot is just the same.
- bionhoward 2y agoYou can’t use OpenAI models without technically breaking OpenAI terms. That’s the best part. The human brain is a model that competes with OpenAI, and every time you look at the output, you use OpenAI outputs to develop your brain. Thus, every user interaction violates the rules as written, and is “illegal, harmful, or abusive.” Malicious compliance is the move. Just don’t use it!