zlacker

>>JimDab+(OP)
I don’t quite buy your Cyberpunk utopia where the Megacorp finally rids us of those pesky ethics qualms (or ”shackles“, as you phrased it.) Microsoft can now proceed without the guidance of a council that actually has humanities interests in mind, not only those of Microsoft shareholders. I don’t know whether all that caution will turn out to have been necessary, but I guess we’re just gleefully heading into whatever lies ahead without any concern whatsoever, and learn it the hard way.

It’s a bit tragic that Ilya and company achieved the exact opposite of what they intended apparently, by driving those they attempted to slow down into the arms of people with more money and less morals. Well.

>>9dev+w9
IDK. Let's proceed with caution in gauging intentions and interests. Altamans', Microsoft's, the Jedi council's.

"Humanity's interest at heart" is a mouthful. I'm not denigrating it. I think it is really important.

That said, as a proverbial human... I am not hanging my hat on that charter. Members of the consortium all also claim to be serving the common good in their other ventures. So do Exxon.

OpenAI haven't created, or even articulated a coherent, legible, and believable model for enshrining humanity's interests. The corporate structure flowchart of nonprofit, LLCs, and such.. it is not anywhere near sufficient.

OpenAI in no way belongs to humanity. Not rhetorically, legally or in practice... currently.

I'm all for efforts to prevent these new technologies from being stolen from humanity, controlled monopolistically... From moderate to radical ideas, I'm all ears.

What happened to the human consortium that was the worldwideWeb, gnu, and descendant projects like Wikipedia... That was moral theft, imo. I am for any effort to avoid a repeat. OpenAI is not such an effort, as far as I can tell.

If it is, it's not too late. Open AI haven't betrayed the generous reading of the mission in charter. They just haven't taken hard steps to achieving it. Instead, they have left things open, and I think the more realistic take is the default one.

>>dalbas+lG
Can you explain what you mean in your second to last paragraph?

The GNU project and the Wikimedia Foundation are still non profit today, and even if you disagree with their results their goal is to server humanity for free.

>>dorfsm+951
I'm not criticizing these projects, their current legal structure.

What I mean is that these were created as public goods and functioned as such. Each had unique way of being open, spreading the value of their work as far as possible.

They were extraordinary. Incredible quality. Incredible power. Incredible ability to be built upon.. particularly the WWW.

All achieved things that simply could not have been achieved, by being a normal commercial venture.

Google,fb and co essentially stole them. They built closed platforms built a top open ones. Built bridges between users and the public domain, and monopolize them like bridge trolls.

Considering how part of the culture, a company like Google was 20 years ago this is the treason.