zlacker

The point of their charter is not to make money, it's to develop AI for the benefit of all, which I interpret to mean putting control and exploitation of AI in the hands of the public.

The reality: we don't even get public LLM models, let alone source code, while their coffers overfloweth.

Awesome for OpenAI and their employees! Every else goes without. Public benefit my arse.

>>dkjaud+(OP)
I've been really hung up on the irony of "Open" part of the OpenAI name. I figure "Open" must mean "open for business". What is open about OpenAI?

>>mrinte+M5
The most oppressive regimes have "Democratic" or "People's" in the official name of their country.

Someone took inspiration from this.

>>dkjaud+(OP)
While I completely agree, I think we've seen enough to realize that something as powerful as what OpenAI is developing shouldn't be freely released to the public. Not as a product, nor as source code.

Dangerous and powerful things like weapons and chemicals are restricted in both physical and informational form for safety reasons. AI needs to be treated similarly.

>>mrinte+M5
They changed their minds and didn't change the name. That's all.

>>wmf+re
If that's the case the name should come with an asterisk and footnote. Keeping "Open" in the name is not genuine. Its would be like a superhero group called themselves "Hero Squad" and decided being superheros is not profitable as villainy, but still calling themselves Hero Squad despite the obvious operational changes.

>>TheKar+Rd
So you believe that Microsoft can on average more be trusted with dangerous technology than humanity as a whole?

A bold claim given their track record