zlacker

>>modele+(OP)
> Indeed, as the November 2023 drama was unfolding, Microsoft’s CEO boasted that it would not matter “[i]f OpenAI disappeared tomorrow.” He explained that “[w]e have all the IP rights and all the capability.” “We have the people, we have the compute, we have the data, we have everything.” “We are below them, above them, around them.”

Yikes.

This technology definitely needs to be open source, especially if we get to the point of AGI. Otherwise Microsoft and OpenAI are going to exploit it for as long as they can get away with it for profit, while open source lags behind.

Reminds me of the moral principles that guided Zimmermann when he made PGP free for everyone: A powerful technology is a danger to society if only a few people possess it. By giving it to everyone, you even the playing field.

>>aleksa+jz1
I don't trust OpenAI or Microsoft, but I don't have much faith in democratization either. We wouldn't do that with nukes, after all.

>>Jeff_B+NA1
> I don't trust OpenAI or Microsoft, but I don't have much faith in democratization either. We wouldn't do that with nukes, after all.

Dangerous things are controlled by the government (in a democracy, a form of democratization). It's bizarre and shows the US government's self-inflicted helplessness that they haven't taken over a project that its founders and developers see as a potential danger to civilization.