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
Then the foundational document of openAi is Self-contradictory

>>seydor+Oy1
Perhaps, but who knew? Nobody at that time knew how to build AGI, and what it therefore might look like. I'm sure people would have laughed at you if you said "predict next word" was the path to AGI. The transformer paper that kicked off the LLM revolution would not be written for another couple of years. DeepMind was still focusing on games, with AlphaGo also still a couple of years away.

OpenAI's founding charter was basically we'll protect you from an all-powerful Google, and give you the world's most valuable technology for free.