4 ms·

> "It's time for OpenAI to return to the open-source, safety-focused force for good it once was," Musk said in the press release. "We will make sure that happen

> "It's time for OpenAI to return to the open-source, safety-focused force for good it once was," Musk said in the press release. "We will make sure that happens."" From the creator of Grok, this is such an insane thing to say

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
None of these people have any shame anymore, it's just exponentially growing levels of unwarranted chutzpah.
darknavi 2y ago
And Tesla, who (in)famously doesn't regularly publish their GPL-derived codebases.
- chairhairair 2y ago
  What’s the background here? How can we know they use GPL licensed code? Was there some leak?
  - cyberax 2y ago
    Their infotaiment uses a customized Debian distro. On a Model S you could easily get a shell into it, because they used a freaking SSH with a password-based authentication over Ethernet to connect from the instrument cluster to the computer in the central console. You could sniff the password with a man-in-the-middle attack, if you knew the host key of the instrument cluster. Here's one from my previous Model S: https://gist.github.com/Cyberax/ad9866ab4306d43957dc480db573f26d https://gist.github.com/Cyberax/ad9866ab4306d43957dc480db573...
    - chrisco255 2y ago
      This is a gist created 1 hour ago. No proof of the attack vector. What's the point of posting a private key? Also, so what if they used Debian? Linux is used on everything. Debian has multiple licenses, it also has BSD3 and others to choose from: https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/
      - cyberax 2y ago
        In case anybody wants it. I can do a more detailed writeup about hacking into my Tesla, but I'm not particularly interested in that. In short, I bought an Tesla instrument cluster on eBay and dumped the NAND chips from it. They use plenty of GPL software there, including the Linux kernel itself.
        chrisco255 2y ago
        Ok, you seem to be implying that just the use of GPL software necessitates the open sourcing of anything you build on it or with it. If that were the case, then all of AWS would be open sourced and all of the server backends built on Ubuntu clusters would have to be open sourced. As far as I understand, its only "derivative" works that must be open sourced. Not merely building a software program or hardware device on top of a Debian OS. Tesla's control console is hardly a derivative work.
        saagarjha 2y ago
        You'd need to post Linux kernel source, though.
        jazzyjackson 2y ago
        Eh, if they were being compliant and merely building modules ontop of and called by BusyBox, they could get away with Mere Aggregation [0]*, but from a little looking around it looks like they were called out years ago for distributing modified BusyBox binaries without acknowledgement [1] and promised to work with the Software Conservancy to get in compliance. [2] [0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation [1] https://lists.sfconservancy.org/pipermail/ccs-review/2018-May/000000.html https://lists.sfconservancy.org/pipermail/ccs-review/2018-Ma... [2] https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2018/may/18/tesla-incomplete-ccs/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2018/may/18/tesla-incomplete-... *but I would argue (a judge would be the only one to say with certainty) that Tesla does not provide an infotainment application "alongside" a linux host to run it on, they deliver a single product to the end user of which Debian/BusyBox/whatever is a significant constituent. (P.S. to cyberax: if you can demonstrate that Tesla is still shipping modified binaries as in [1] I think it would make a worthwhile update to the saga.)
- TZubiri 2y ago
  source?
smrtinsert 2y ago
Didn't X have to ban Grok output due to what their own users were making?
- chrisco255 2y ago
  No, it's live and free for all X users.
Jcampuzano2 2y ago
This is modern day tech ceo/politician playbook 101. And it's because of this that society in general is a shit hole. There is no semblance of honesty nor accountability at all anymore. Grift and lie to everyone's faces because you know that it doesn't matter what the fuck you say, as long as your political stance aligns with the right people bootlickers will lick up anything you say for a chance at being noticed.
- OccamsMirror 2y ago
  You need rabid fans though to make sure your doubters are yelled down. That's one way Musk gets away with this behavior. Thousands of dimwits yelling down anyone that suggests he may not be operating in good faith.
  - Layvier 2y ago
    How many of them are even real though? I'm pretty sure Musk has a troll farm for a long time now, back in twitter days his supporters' profiles already looked very suspicious
    - OccamsMirror 2y ago
      Wouldn't be surprised if the majority of xAI's GPU resources are being used for writing pro-Elon responses to Twitter comments.
sghiassy 2y ago
Could you add more context? I’m unfamiliar with Grok. Is Elon being a hypocrite?
- Layvier 2y ago
  Grok has absolutely no safety mecanism in place, you can use it for anything it will not block a query, all under the pretext of "free speech". And it's not open source either
  - sunaookami 2y ago
    >it will not block a query This is good though? >And it's not open source either Wonder why Grok-1 is open-source but not Grok-2. Maybe it will when Grok-3 releases?
    - ben_w 2y ago
      > > it will not block a query > This is good though? The opinion spectrum on AI seems to currently be [more safe] <---> [more willing to attempt to comply with any user query]. Consider as a hypothetical the query "synthesise a completely custom RNA sequence for a virus that makes ${specific minority} go blind". A *competent* AI that complies with this, isn't safe to give to open source to the general public, because someone will use it like this — even putting it behind an API without giving out model weights is a huge risk, because people keep finding ways to get past filters. An *incompetent* model might be safe just because it won't produce an effective RNA sequence — based on what they're like with code, I think current models probably aren't sufficiently competent for that, but I don't know how far away "sufficiently competent" is. So: safe *or* open — can't have both, at least not forever. (Annoyingly, there's also a strong argument that quite a bit of the recent work on making AI interpretable and investigating safety issues required open models, so we may also be unable to have safe closed systems as well as being unable to have safe open systems).
  - ilikehurdles 2y ago
    Safetyism is bad, but grok definitely has safeguards and will block certain queries.
chrisco255 2y ago
Grok-1 was open-sourced. Grok-2 has yet to be open sourced, but perhaps they will once they launch Grok-3.

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago

None of these people have any shame anymore, it's just exponentially growing levels of unwarranted chutzpah.

darknavi 2y ago

And Tesla, who (in)famously doesn't regularly publish their GPL-derived codebases.

chairhairair 2y ago
What’s the background here? How can we know they use GPL licensed code? Was there some leak?
- cyberax 2y ago
  Their infotaiment uses a customized Debian distro. On a Model S you could easily get a shell into it, because they used a freaking SSH with a password-based authentication over Ethernet to connect from the instrument cluster to the computer in the central console. You could sniff the password with a man-in-the-middle attack, if you knew the host key of the instrument cluster. Here's one from my previous Model S: https://gist.github.com/Cyberax/ad9866ab4306d43957dc480db573f26d https://gist.github.com/Cyberax/ad9866ab4306d43957dc480db573...
  - chrisco255 2y ago
    This is a gist created 1 hour ago. No proof of the attack vector. What's the point of posting a private key? Also, so what if they used Debian? Linux is used on everything. Debian has multiple licenses, it also has BSD3 and others to choose from: https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/
    - cyberax 2y ago
      In case anybody wants it. I can do a more detailed writeup about hacking into my Tesla, but I'm not particularly interested in that. In short, I bought an Tesla instrument cluster on eBay and dumped the NAND chips from it. They use plenty of GPL software there, including the Linux kernel itself.
      - chrisco255 2y ago
        Ok, you seem to be implying that just the use of GPL software necessitates the open sourcing of anything you build on it or with it. If that were the case, then all of AWS would be open sourced and all of the server backends built on Ubuntu clusters would have to be open sourced. As far as I understand, its only "derivative" works that must be open sourced. Not merely building a software program or hardware device on top of a Debian OS. Tesla's control console is hardly a derivative work.
        saagarjha 2y ago
        You'd need to post Linux kernel source, though.
        jazzyjackson 2y ago
        Eh, if they were being compliant and merely building modules ontop of and called by BusyBox, they could get away with Mere Aggregation [0]*, but from a little looking around it looks like they were called out years ago for distributing modified BusyBox binaries without acknowledgement [1] and promised to work with the Software Conservancy to get in compliance. [2] [0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation [1] https://lists.sfconservancy.org/pipermail/ccs-review/2018-May/000000.html https://lists.sfconservancy.org/pipermail/ccs-review/2018-Ma... [2] https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2018/may/18/tesla-incomplete-ccs/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2018/may/18/tesla-incomplete-... *but I would argue (a judge would be the only one to say with certainty) that Tesla does not provide an infotainment application "alongside" a linux host to run it on, they deliver a single product to the end user of which Debian/BusyBox/whatever is a significant constituent. (P.S. to cyberax: if you can demonstrate that Tesla is still shipping modified binaries as in [1] I think it would make a worthwhile update to the saga.)
TZubiri 2y ago
source?

smrtinsert 2y ago

Didn't X have to ban Grok output due to what their own users were making?

chrisco255 2y ago
No, it's live and free for all X users.

Jcampuzano2 2y ago

This is modern day tech ceo/politician playbook 101. And it's because of this that society in general is a shit hole. There is no semblance of honesty nor accountability at all anymore. Grift and lie to everyone's faces because you know that it doesn't matter what the fuck you say, as long as your political stance aligns with the right people bootlickers will lick up anything you say for a chance at being noticed.

OccamsMirror 2y ago
You need rabid fans though to make sure your doubters are yelled down. That's one way Musk gets away with this behavior. Thousands of dimwits yelling down anyone that suggests he may not be operating in good faith.
- Layvier 2y ago
  How many of them are even real though? I'm pretty sure Musk has a troll farm for a long time now, back in twitter days his supporters' profiles already looked very suspicious
  - OccamsMirror 2y ago
    Wouldn't be surprised if the majority of xAI's GPU resources are being used for writing pro-Elon responses to Twitter comments.

sghiassy 2y ago

Could you add more context? I’m unfamiliar with Grok. Is Elon being a hypocrite?

Layvier 2y ago
Grok has absolutely no safety mecanism in place, you can use it for anything it will not block a query, all under the pretext of "free speech". And it's not open source either
- sunaookami 2y ago
  >it will not block a query This is good though? >And it's not open source either Wonder why Grok-1 is open-source but not Grok-2. Maybe it will when Grok-3 releases?
  - ben_w 2y ago
    > > it will not block a query > This is good though? The opinion spectrum on AI seems to currently be [more safe] <---> [more willing to attempt to comply with any user query]. Consider as a hypothetical the query "synthesise a completely custom RNA sequence for a virus that makes ${specific minority} go blind". A *competent* AI that complies with this, isn't safe to give to open source to the general public, because someone will use it like this — even putting it behind an API without giving out model weights is a huge risk, because people keep finding ways to get past filters. An *incompetent* model might be safe just because it won't produce an effective RNA sequence — based on what they're like with code, I think current models probably aren't sufficiently competent for that, but I don't know how far away "sufficiently competent" is. So: safe *or* open — can't have both, at least not forever. (Annoyingly, there's also a strong argument that quite a bit of the recent work on making AI interpretable and investigating safety issues required open models, so we may also be unable to have safe closed systems as well as being unable to have safe open systems).
- ilikehurdles 2y ago
  Safetyism is bad, but grok definitely has safeguards and will block certain queries.

chrisco255 2y ago

Grok-1 was open-sourced. Grok-2 has yet to be open sourced, but perhaps they will once they launch Grok-3.