zlacker

>>nickth+(OP)
Unsurprising but disappointing none-the-less. Let’s just try to learn from it.

It’s popular in the AI space to claim altruism and openness; OpenAI, Anthropic and xAI (the new Musk one) all have a funky governance structure because they want to be a public good. The challenge is once any of these (or others) start to gain enough traction that they are seen as having a good chance at reaping billions in profits things change.

And it’s not just AI companies and this isn’t new. This is art of human nature and will always be.

We should be putting more emphasis and attention on truly open AI models (open training data, training source code & hyperparameters, model source code, weights) so the benefits of AI accrue to the public and not just a few companies.

[edit - eliminated specific company mentions]

>>mgreg+A5
I guess that is the question - how to differentiate between "open-claiming" companies like openAI vs. "truer grass roots" organizations like Debian, python, linux kernel, etc? At least from the view point of, say, someone who is just coming smack into the field and without the benefit of years of watching the evolution/governance of each organization?

>>caycep+Ii
>how to differentiate between "open-claiming" companies like openAI vs. "truer grass roots" organizations

Honestly? The people. Calculate the distance to (American) venture capital and the chance they go bad is the inverse of that. Linus, Guido, Ian, Jean-Baptiste Kempf of VLC fame, who turned down seven figures, what they all have in common is that they're not in that orbit and had their roots in academia and open source or free software.