zlacker

>>isaacf+(OP)
This seems an important article, if for no other reason than it brings the betrayal of its foundational claim still brazenly present in OpenAI's name from the obscurity of HN comments going back years into the public light and the mainstream.

They've achieved marvellous things, OpenAI, but the pivot and long-standing refusal to deal with it honestly leaves an unpleasant taste, and doesn't bode well for the future, especially considering the enormous ethical implications of advantage in the field they are leading.

>>mellos+pe
To quote Spaceballs, they're not doing it for money, they're doing it for a shitload of money.

>>ripper+yr
They are following the Residential Real Estate Developer Playbook, always name your for profit exploitation project after the beautiful organic thing you destroyed to pave the way for it...

Examples Whispering pines, Blue Heron Bay, OpenAI

>>djyaz1+N21
Hadn’t OpenAI published all the key research results to repro ChatGPT? And made their model available to literally everyone? And contributed more than anyone else to AI alignment/safety?

To me it looks like nearly every other player, including open source projects are there for short term fame and profit, while it’s the OpenAI that is playing the long game of AI alignment.

>>startu+wa1
> As another example, we now believe we were wrong in our original thinking about openness, and have pivoted from thinking we should release everything (though we open source some things, and expect to open source more exciting things in the future!) to thinking that we should figure out how to safely share access to and benefits of the systems.

https://openai.com/blog/planning-for-agi-and-beyond

>>sharkj+3l1
Well gosh, what could be a safer way to share than giving access to people with money? Since we live in a meritocracy, we're basically guaranteed that anybody with money to spend is virtuous, and vice versa.