zlacker

[parent] [thread] 3 comments
1. shp0ng+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-03-01 21:34:13
They claim that this is about the end result, but in the meantime, they can license the not-yet-done AI to Microsoft.
replies(3): >>remram+xo >>jasonf+fy >>_heimd+gA
◧
2. remram+xo[view] [source] 2024-03-02 00:26:13
>>shp0ng+(OP)
Arguably a lot of it is "done". They sell subscriptions to third parties...
◧
3. jasonf+fy[view] [source] 2024-03-02 02:12:44
>>shp0ng+(OP)
Their argument is that the profit from the license assists in reaching the end result. E.g. giving them compute power.
◧
4. _heimd+gA[view] [source] 2024-03-02 02:39:44
>>shp0ng+(OP)
If that's the interpretation, its cpletely open ended and OpenAI has full rights to move goal posts for as long as they wish by redefining "done".

Technologies are never "done" unless and until they are abandoned. Would it be reasonable for OpenAI to only open source once the product is "done" because it is obsolete or failed to meet performance metrics?

And is that open sourcing of the training algorithm, the interpretation engine, or the produced data model?

[go to top]