zlacker

[parent] [thread] 6 comments
1. hacker+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-05-18 07:31:25
the name OpenAI itself reminds me every day of this.
replies(2): >>genevr+M8 >>deadba+my
2. genevr+M8[view] [source] 2024-05-18 09:41:52
>>hacker+(OP)
I knew their vision of open source AI wouldn't last but it surprised me how fast it was.
replies(2): >>baq+rb >>w0m+nj
◧◩
3. baq+rb[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-18 10:27:44
>>genevr+M8
That vision, if it was ever there, died before ChatGPT was released. It was just a hiring scheme to attract researchers.

pg calls sama ‘naughty’. I call him ‘dangerous’.

replies(1): >>olalon+vA
◧◩
4. w0m+nj[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-18 12:07:32
>>genevr+M8
It was impractical from the start; they had to pivot before a they were able to get an LLM proper out (before ~anyone had heard of them)
5. deadba+my[view] [source] 2024-05-18 14:14:24
>>hacker+(OP)
It’s “Open” as in “open Pandora’s box”, not “open source”. Always has been.
◧◩◪
6. olalon+vA[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-18 14:32:13
>>baq+rb
I'm still finding it difficult to understand how their move away from the non-profit mission was legal. Initially, you assert that you are a mission-driven non-profit, a claim that attracts talent, capital, press, partners, and users. Then, you make a complete turnaround and transform into a for-profit enterprise. Why this isn't considered fraud is beyond me.
replies(1): >>smt88+0O
◧◩◪◨
7. smt88+0O[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-18 16:36:13
>>olalon+vA
My understanding is that there were two corporate entities, one of which was always for-profit.
[go to top]