zlacker

>>isaacf+(OP)
I find it a little odd that Elon seems to take a swipe at OpenAI any opportunity he gets. If he cares so much about them not making money, maybe he should have put his twitter cash there instead? It's reassuring to me that the two people running policy work at the big AI "startups", Jack Clark (Anthropic) and Miles Brundage (OpenAI, who was hired by Jack iirc), are genuinely good humans. I've known Jack for 10 years and he's for sure a measured and reasonable person who cares about not doing harm. Although I don't know Miles, my understanding is he has similar qualities. If they're gonna be for profit, I feel this is really important.

Edit: Well, I guess these tweets explain the beef well -

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1606642155346612229

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1626516035863212034

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1599291104687374338

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1096987465326374912

>>neom+E9
This "not doing harm" narrative is very grating. It's just another transparent and self-serving attempt by a company to co-opt progressive vernacular to justify whatever questionable policy they have as a moral imperative.

This is the corporate equivalent of "think of the children". A justification that could have been used to gate-keep any and all aspects of computer science, and one that isn't even logically consistent since they only hide their code and weights while still publishing their research: making it ultimately reproducible by malicious actors, especially those well-funded, while slowing down researchers and competitors.

We are privileged to work in a field where we have open access journals, and where there is a large undergoing drive to improve the reproducibility of papers by releasing the code and weights. Their behaviour is the antithesis of what the field is working towards and having talked to many researchers, I don't know many that are fooled by it.

>>ad404b+5h
Based