zlacker

>>modele+(OP)
If OpenAI became a non-profit with this in its charter:

“resulting technology will benefit the public and the corporation will seek to open source technology for the public benefit when applicable. The corporation is not organized for the private gain of any person"

I don't think it is going to be hard to show that they are doing something very different than what they said they were going to do.

>>troupe+Kd1
So much of the discussion here is about being a non-profit, but per your quote I think the key is open source. Here we have people investing in an open source company, and the company never opened their source. Rather than open source technology everyone could profit from, they kept everything closed and sold exclusive access. I think it is going to be hard for OpenAI to defend their behavior, and a huge amount of damages to be claimed for all the money investors had to spend catching up.

>>stubis+qi2
It says "will seek to open source technology for the public benefit when applicable" they have open sourced a number of things, Whisper most notably. Nothing about that is a promise to open source everything and they just need to say it wasn't applicable for ChatGPT or DallE because of safety.

>>tracer+ij2
I doubt the safety argument will hold up in court. Anything safe enough to allow Microsoft or others access too would be safe enough to release publicly. Our AI overlords are not going to respect an NDA. And for the public safety/disinformation side of things, I think it is safe to say that cat is out of the bag and chasing the horse that has bolted.

>>stubis+2n2
`Anything safe enough to allow Microsoft or others access too would be safe enough to release publicly.`

This makes absolutely no sense.

>>tintor+ax2
>This makes absolutely no sense.

>>34716375

What about now?

>>rl3+Tz2
Microsoft doesn't run troll farms trying to manipulate the voters to change the US to a dictatorship, or develop killer drone swarms or have nukes.

(Not saying OpenAI isn't greedy)

>>cutemo+N14
I think you make a good point. My argument was that Microsoft's security isn't that great, therefore the risk of the model ending up in the hands of the bad actors you mention isn't sufficiently low.