zlacker

>>modele+(OP)
Any competent lawyer is going to get Musk on the stand reiterating his opinions about the danger of AI. If the tech really is dangerous then being more closed arguably is in the public's best interest, and this is certainly the reason OpenAI have previously given.

Not saying I agree that being closed source is in the public good, although one could certainly argue that accelerating the efforts of bad actors to catch up would not be a positive.

>>HarHar+vu1
> If the tech really is dangerous then being more closed arguably is in the public's best interest

If that was true, then they shouldn't have started off like that to begin with. You can't have it both ways. Either you are pursuing your goal to be open (as the name implies) or the way you set yourself up was ill-suited all along.

>>starbu+nw1
…unless you believe that the world can change and people’s opinions and decisions should change based on changing contexts and evolving understandings.

When I was young I proudly insisted that all I ever wanted to eat was pizza. I am very glad that 1) I was allowed to evolve out of that desire, and 2) I am not constantly harangued as a hypocrite when I enjoy a nice salad.

>>brooks+DU1
> …unless you believe that the world can change and people’s opinions and decisions should change based on changing contexts and evolving understandings.

What I believe doesn't matter. As an adult, if you set up contracts and structures based on principles which you bind yourself to, that's your decision. If you then convince people to join or support you based on those principles, you shouldn't be surprised if you get into trouble once you "change your opinion" and no longer fulfill your obligations.

> When I was young I proudly insisted that all I ever wanted to eat was pizza.

What a good thing that you can't set up a contract as a child, isn't it?