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
Sure, but the OpenAI situation feels a bit more like "when I started this charity all I wanted to do was save the world. Then I decided the best thing to do was use the donor funds to strengthen my friend Satya's products, earn 100x returns for investors and spin off profit making ventures to bill the world"

It's not like they've gone closed source as a company or threatened to run off to Microsoft as individuals or talked up the need for $7 trillion investment in semiconductors because they've evolved the understanding that the technology is too dangerous to turn into a mass market product they just happen to monopolise, is it?