zlacker

> 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.

>>Wytwww+(OP)
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.