Most active commenters
  • refulgentis(3)

←back to thread

614 points nickthegreek | 16 comments | | HN request time: 0.899s | source | bottom
Show context
d3m0t3p ◴[] No.39121676[source]
Why are people surprised that openAI is closed since we know they don’t share anything since chatGPT was launched and they got billion in investments
replies(4): >>39121831 #>>39121863 #>>39121981 #>>39122038 #
1. JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.39121831[source]
> Why are people surprised that openAI is closed

The surprise is more at the (EDIT: brazen) pathological lying.

replies(3): >>39121894 #>>39122082 #>>39122465 #
2. pierat ◴[] No.39121894[source]
it's governed by VC execs. No shit they're lying - their mouths are moving.
replies(1): >>39121901 #
3. refulgentis ◴[] No.39121901[source]
n.b. It's not, that's why it was possible for them to move on from Altman
replies(2): >>39123341 #>>39123823 #
4. bayindirh ◴[] No.39122082[source]
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

We passed this point 10-15 cases ago. Don’t people learn what OpenAI is all about?

Hint: Think 1984. They are Ministry of Truth.

replies(1): >>39122184 #
5. ben_w ◴[] No.39122184[source]
10?

This is only the 2nd or 3rd thing that seems to me even a little incoherent with their initially stated position, the other certain one being the mystery of why the board couldn't find anyone to replace Altman who didn't very quickly decide to take his side, and the other possible one being asking for a profit making subsidiary to raise capital (though at the time all the criticism I remember was people saying they couldn't realistically reach x100 and now it's people ignoring that it's limited to only x100).

replies(1): >>39122425 #
6. bayindirh ◴[] No.39122425{3}[source]
I'm not counting starting from Altman Saga(TM), but from the beginning. Promises of being open, keeping structure secret, changing their terms to allow military use, etc. etc.

They state something publicly, but are headed to completely different trajectory in reality.

This is enough for me.

replies(1): >>39122493 #
7. YetAnotherNick ◴[] No.39122465[source]
What did they lie about objectively? The entire benefit to humanity statement is subjective enough to be not considered lying and many consider closed AI to be the safest. Changing their goals is also not lying.

In fact, I would consider changing goals publicly to be better than not following the goals.

replies(2): >>39122533 #>>39122931 #
8. ben_w ◴[] No.39122493{4}[source]
I was also counting from the beginning.
9. JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.39122533[source]
> What did they lie about objectively?

Wired claims OpenAI’s “reports to US tax authorities have from its founding said that any member of the public can review copies of its governing documents, financial statements, and conflict of interest rules.” That was apparently a lie.

> Changing their goals is also not lying

Changing a forward-looking commitment is. Particularly when it changes the moment it’s called.

10. JohnFen ◴[] No.39122931[source]
> What did they lie about objectively?

I don't know if I'd put this in terms of a "lie" or not, but OpenAI's stated principles and goals are not backed up by their actions. They have mined other people's works in order to build something that they purport as being for the benefit of mankind in some way, when their actions actually indicate that they've mined other people's work in order to build something for the purpose of massively increasing their own power and wealth.

I'd have more respect for them if they were at least honest about their intentions.

replies(1): >>39125182 #
11. RockCoach ◴[] No.39123341{3}[source]
> n.b. It's not, that's why it was possible for them to move on from Altman

That's only under the assumption that the split with Altman was due to the doomers vs bloomers conflict and not just a dirty move from OpenAI board member Adam D'Angelo, trying to protect his investment in Quora's AI Poe.

replies(1): >>39125642 #
12. mtlmtlmtlmtl ◴[] No.39123823{3}[source]
They didn't move on from Altman did they? So was it really possible?
replies(1): >>39125623 #
13. ◴[] No.39125182{3}[source]
14. refulgentis ◴[] No.39125623{4}[source]
They didn't fail to get rid of Altman because the board is VCs. Because the board is not VCs.
replies(1): >>39127609 #
15. refulgentis ◴[] No.39125642{4}[source]
I'm not familiar with either fanfic, beyond the one-sentence pitch[1]. I'm not sure why one of the two has to be true for reality (the board is not VCs) to be true

[1] RIP "they switched everyone to prepaid billing!!!11!" I ate probably -10 saying "no, you got that email saying it was available because it was a feature announced at devday as coming soon"

16. qwytw ◴[] No.39127609{5}[source]
> Because the board is not VCs.

Except that's not really true. Almost everyone on the board were either VCs themselves or had very strong ties to the them. In any case OpenAI would be irrelevant without significant investments from organizations/people who want a return on them. So it's basically a moot point: no VCs/big corporations = no fancy,extremely expensive to train & develop LLMs.