zlacker

[parent] [thread] 24 comments
1. haunte+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-11-22 07:59:04
> OpenAI is in fact not open

Apple is also not an apple

replies(7): >>Kepler+X1 >>smt88+w2 >>colins+X2 >>lynx23+55 >>sangee+y6 >>Cacti+nI >>rurp+Hr1
2. Kepler+X1[view] [source] 2023-11-22 08:14:46
>>haunte+(OP)
Pretty sure Apple never aimed to be an Apple.
replies(3): >>hef198+Q2 >>sam_lo+n3 >>monosc+Vm
3. smt88+w2[view] [source] 2023-11-22 08:18:37
>>haunte+(OP)
Apple has no by-laws committing itself to being an apple.

This line of argument is facile and destructive to conversation anyway.

It boils down to, "Pointing out corporate hypocrisy isn't valuable because corporations are liars," and (worse) it implies the other person is naive.

In reality, we can and should be outraged when corporations betray their own statements and supposed values.

replies(3): >>khazho+u5 >>Wytwww+Lk >>photoc+5E
◧◩
4. hef198+Q2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-22 08:20:44
>>Kepler+X1
They sure sued a lot of apple places over having an apple as logo.
replies(1): >>_Alger+Jl
5. colins+X2[view] [source] 2023-11-22 08:21:24
>>haunte+(OP)
did the "Open" in OpenAI not originally refer to open in the academic or open source manner? i only learned about OpenAI in the GPT-2 days, when they released it openly and it was still small enough that i ran it on my laptop: i just assumed they had always acted according to their literal name up through that point.
replies(2): >>SuchAn+s3 >>Centig+Y3
◧◩
6. sam_lo+n3[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-22 08:25:42
>>Kepler+X1
But The Apple.
◧◩
7. SuchAn+s3[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-22 08:26:21
>>colins+X2
Except that view point fell even earlier when they refused to release their models after GPT-2.
◧◩
8. Centig+Y3[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-22 08:31:11
>>colins+X2
This has been a common misinterpretation since very early in OpenAI's history (and a somewhat convenient one for OpenAI).

From a 2016 New Yorker article:

> Dario Amodei said, "[People in the field] are saying that the goal of OpenAI is to build a friendly A.I. and then release its source code into the world.”

> “We don’t plan to release all of our source code,” Altman said. “But let’s please not try to correct that. That usually only makes it worse.”

source: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/sam-altmans-ma...

replies(1): >>olau+Xk
9. lynx23+55[view] [source] 2023-11-22 08:37:41
>>haunte+(OP)
Yes!
◧◩
10. khazho+u5[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-22 08:40:36
>>smt88+w2
> In reality, we can and should be outraged when corporations betray their own statements and supposed values.

There are only three groups of people who could be subject to betrayal here: employees, investors, and customers. Clearly they did not betray employees or investors, since they largely sided with Sam. As for customers, that's harder to gauge -- did people sign up for ChatGPT with the explicit expectation that the research would be "open"?

The founding charter said one thing, but the majority of the company and investors went in a different direction. That's not a betrayal, but a pivot.

replies(3): >>Angost+Z7 >>master+Rm >>denton+Nc2
11. sangee+y6[view] [source] 2023-11-22 08:49:26
>>haunte+(OP)
I got news for you pal: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/apple-vs-apples-trademark-ba...
◧◩◪
12. Angost+Z7[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-22 09:01:00
>>khazho+u5
I think there’s an additional group to consider- society at large.

To an extent the promise of the non- profit was that they would be safe, expert custodians of AI development driven not primarily by the profit motive, but also by safety and societal considerations. Has this larger group been ‘betrayed’? Perhaps

replies(2): >>biscot+Qi >>Wytwww+2l
◧◩◪◨
13. biscot+Qi[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-22 10:38:07
>>Angost+Z7
Also donors. They received a ton of donations when they were a pure non-profit from people that got no board seat, no equities, with the believe that they will stick to their mission.
◧◩
14. Wytwww+Lk[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-22 10:54:25
>>smt88+w2
> Apple has no by-laws committing itself to being an apple.

Does OpenAI have by-laws committing itself to being "open" (as in open source or at least their products freely and universally available)? I thought their goals were the complete opposite of that?

Unfortunately, in reality Facebook/Meta seems to be more open than "Open"AI.

replies(1): >>DebtDe+Kn
◧◩◪
15. olau+Xk[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-22 10:55:55
>>Centig+Y3
I'm not sure this is a correct characterization. Lex Fridman interviewed Elon Musk recently where Musk says that the "open" was supposed to stand for "open source".

To be fair, Fridman grilled Musk on his views today, also in the context of xAI, and he was less clear cut there, talking about the problem that there's actually very little source code, it's mostly about the data.

replies(1): >>cyanyd+Zs
◧◩◪◨
16. Wytwww+2l[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-22 10:56:04
>>Angost+Z7
Not unless we believe that OpenAI is somehow "special" and unique and the only company that is capable of building AGI(or whatever).
◧◩◪
17. _Alger+Jl[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-22 11:03:35
>>hef198+Q2
If having an apple logo makes a company an apple, then Apple is in fact an apple
◧◩◪
18. master+Rm[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-22 11:14:27
>>khazho+u5
> Clearly they did not betray employees or investors, since they largely sided with Sam

Just because they sided with Altman doesn't necessarily mean they are aligned. There could be a lack of information on the employee/investor side.

◧◩
19. monosc+Vm[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-22 11:14:46
>>Kepler+X1
It's actually one of the most spectacular failures in business history, but we don't talk much about it
◧◩◪
20. DebtDe+Kn[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-22 11:23:17
>>Wytwww+Lk
This is spot on. Open was the wrong word to choose for their name, and in the technology space means nearly the opposite of the charter's intention. BeneficialAI would have been more "aligned" with their claimed mission. They have made their position quite clear - the creation of an AGI that is safe and benefits all humanity requires a closed process that limits who can have access to it. I understand their theoretical concerns, but the desire for a "benevolent dictator" goes back to at least Plato and always ends in tears.
◧◩◪◨
21. cyanyd+Zs[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-22 12:04:24
>>olau+Xk
Altman appears to be in the driving seat, so it doesn't matter what other people are saying, the point is "Open" is not being used here to the open source context _but_ they definitely dont try to correct anyone who thinks they're providing open source products.
◧◩
22. photoc+5E[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-22 13:24:13
>>smt88+w2
It does seem that the hypocrisy was baked in from the beginning. In the tech world 'open' implied open source but OpenAI wanted to benefit from a marketing itself as something like Linux when internally it was something like Microsoft.

Corporations have no values whatsoever and their statements only mean anything when expressed in terms of a legally binding contract. All corporate value statements should be viewed as nothing more than the kind of self-serving statements that an amoral narcissitic sociopath would make to protect their own interests.

23. Cacti+nI[view] [source] 2023-11-22 13:48:37
>>haunte+(OP)
these are the vapid, pedantic hot takes we all come here for. thanks.
24. rurp+Hr1[view] [source] 2023-11-22 17:07:11
>>haunte+(OP)
Did Apple raise funds and spend a lot of time promoting itself as a giant apple that would feed humanity?
◧◩◪
25. denton+Nc2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-22 20:40:04
>>khazho+u5
> There are only three groups of people who could be subject to betrayal here

GP didn't speak of betraying people; he spoke of betraying their own statements. That just means doing what you said you wouldn't; it doesn't mean anyone was stabbed in the back.

[go to top]