Edit: Well, I guess these tweets explain the beef well -
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1606642155346612229
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1626516035863212034
Not what I intended at all." - Elon
You can think what you want of Elon, but he is in the right here.
Part of me feels that in the run to more privacy, we don’t really have a reputation system anymore. You mention that Jack and Miles are good people, but how can we know such things as a general public?
In the days of yore and people were local you kind of new who was who. In the global space, this becomes hard. I feel this ties in with discussions on trust and leaning into people who are responsible and wise.
Maybe they just wants to express how much they don't like Elon any opportunity they gets.
It is similar to what Microsoft did with Facebook in the early days of slowing acquiring a stake in the company. But this is an aggressive version of that with OpenAI. What you have now is the exact opposite of their original goals in: [0]
Before:
> Our goal is to advance digital intelligence in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole, unconstrained by a need to generate financial return. [0]
After:
> Our mission is to ensure that artificial general intelligence—AI systems that are generally smarter than humans—benefits all of humanity. [1]
The real 'Open AI' is Stability AI, since they are more willing to release their work and AI models rather than OpenAI was supposed to do.
This is the corporate equivalent of "think of the children". A justification that could have been used to gate-keep any and all aspects of computer science, and one that isn't even logically consistent since they only hide their code and weights while still publishing their research: making it ultimately reproducible by malicious actors, especially those well-funded, while slowing down researchers and competitors.
We are privileged to work in a field where we have open access journals, and where there is a large undergoing drive to improve the reproducibility of papers by releasing the code and weights. Their behaviour is the antithesis of what the field is working towards and having talked to many researchers, I don't know many that are fooled by it.
Do we have any reason to believe this isn't just more empty grifting from him to optically distance himself from a unethical company he profits from?
He is not part of it any more.
>In 2018, Musk resigned his board seat, citing "a potential future conflict [of interest]" with his role as CEO of Tesla due to Tesla's AI development for self-driving cars, but remained a donor
I don't think he counts as an investor, and I'd imagine he has stopped donating.
Tesla was set up as a for-profit company and is such beholden to shareholders, and so using closed-source AI for profit is the path Tesla is going down.
OpenAI was set up as a non-profit company and only beholden to its values, and promised to be open-source.
These two organisations incentives contradict each other, and so it makes sense for Elon Musk to separate himself from one of them. You could argue that Elon Musk should have instead separated himself from Tesla, but that is a big ask for someone to leave their main lifetime project.
I don't think you can put the blame on Elon Musk that OpenAI later became ClosedAI (while not under his watch), some other members of OpenAI have to be responsible.
If people are feeling conflicted about who the asshole is in this situation, don't be, they are all morally bankrupt assholes who all already have many lifetimes of unimaginable wealth yet must take ever more. These are not people who should have any power in our world.
I would add this one:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1630640058507116553
I had no idea about this drama either, so I didn't understand what Elon was talking about, now it seems clear.
But "Based"? Is it the name of his new AI company? Where does that come from?
I think this hardly matters. Both companies are competing in a market and if the ethics stands in the way of market dominance and shareholder value, ethics will generally lose out.
on 4chan it's largely used to mean something along the lines of "fitting the 4chan anti-groupthink groupthink"
In other news, imo, if a startup doing society altering work per the article is going to be closed, at least, imo, the people working there are decent people.
The models used at Tesla are vastly different than the LLM models. There is nuance here.
See also "pilled."
It seems a bit ironic that "evil" Google openly published the paper ("Attention is all you need") that desribes the "Transformer" architecture that now anyone such as OpenAI with the money and inclination can use to build their own ChatGPT. Turns out it's about money (10,000 GPUs + tons of data to train this thing) not any secret sauce.
And now Musk's concern has changed from AI being in too few hands to the fact that it's "woke" so he wants to create another AI company to create the racist/threatening non-woke AI that he thinks the world needs. Or, at least the one that he needs, to keep himself at the center of attention.
There's nuance to the etymology of any word of course. In fact I sometimes see the extremely online left try to (ironically?) appropriate "based." But I think in the context we can all figure out which connotation Elon was using.
it's just general internet speak at this point
Just out of curiosity, are you trying to say that these people are Effective Altruists, and for that "genuinely good humans", and so, if they're making money, it's for a good cause?
Apologies if my guess is off. I'm not very au fait with EA, but I'm trying to get more er, more au fait.
Lil B
(based ≈ doing your own thing (in a good way)
not swayed by critics)
↙ ↘
Gen Z 4chan
(based ≈ cool) ("based and redpilled"
≈"unswayed by pop rhetoric"
and "sees the world beyond the 'illusion'", resp.)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Chapman_(American_activis...
The whole "ELON MUSK BAD NOW" change to the zeitgeist is alarming to me. He was the darling of the left for years because of Tesla and SpaceX, but now he's completely persona non grata for...reasons?
It smacks of excommunication for heresy.
How you can build a successful car company in the US without getting super rich, I don't know.
It's a reference to the BasedGPT "jailbroken" ChatGPT persona that responds to answers in a less politically correct manner.
I don’t; Elon takes swipes at everything he doesn't currently control, especially if he has a past connection to it.
> If he cares so much about them not making money, maybe he should have put his twitter cash there instead?
Musk has a finite quantity of tine and money to devote to destroying businesses, so some of them he'll just have to complain about without personally acquiring to run into the ground. Everyone has limits.
It is also a catchphrase of the extremely online left with exactly the same in-group vs. out-group implication (and, amusingly—because of the different meanings of “liberal” and “lib” favored by the two sides—usually identical meaning with regard to “libs/normies”.)