←back to thread

OpenAI scrapped a promise to disclose key documents to the public

(www.wired.com)
614 points nickthegreek | 10 comments | 24 Jan 24 19:21 UTC | HN request time: 0.252s | source | bottom
Show context
tptacek ◴[24 Jan 24 19:56 UTC] No.39121885[source]▶
If you bought into the idea that OpenAI was developing advanced ML/AI technology as a public utility, isn't that a bit on you? They don't actually owe anybody anything, and never have, so (a) the time to really hammer them on this stuff was a decade ago and (b) they didn't actually take anything from the public to do this, so even a decade ago they could have said "ok whatever" and gotten on with their day.

It would be different, maybe, if everybody else in the industry stood aside and let OpenAI monopolize development of transformer-style-AI (or whatever it is we're calling this) for the common good. But nobody did that; the opposite thing happened. This space has been a Gem Saloon knife fight just waiting to pop off for the entirety of OpenAI's existance.

replies(5): >>39121912 #>>39122508 #>>39122973 #>>39123185 #>>39127458 #
1. swalsh ◴[24 Jan 24 19:59 UTC] No.39121912[source]▶
I'm not completely convinced OpenAI is not a public good. I've started using it at my company, we found literally millions in value... and it cost us about $60 in tokens.
replies(4): >>39121954 #>>39121968 #>>39122158 #>>39122356 #
2. tptacek ◴[24 Jan 24 20:02 UTC] No.39121954[source]▶
It's a company, with a good product. I like Lao Gan Ma chili crisp way out of proportion to what it costs me, but they're still just a firm. :)
3. brcmthrowaway ◴[24 Jan 24 20:04 UTC] No.39121968[source]▶
How did you quantify millions?
replies(1): >>39122220 #
4. JohnFen ◴[24 Jan 24 20:21 UTC] No.39122158[source]▶
That you find value in the product doesn't make them a public good. OpenAI is in it for the money, not for some "public good".
5. swalsh ◴[24 Jan 24 20:26 UTC] No.39122220[source]▶
We used the AI to help us find gaps which were being incorrectly billed. So we could just measure the incorrectly billed dollars directly.
replies(2): >>39122490 #>>39125239 #
6. jonathankoren ◴[24 Jan 24 20:39 UTC] No.39122356[source]▶
Can’t you say this about literally anything you consume?

How is this different than, “I read a scientific paper, and unlocked millions of dollars of value, and all it cost was $250 for 8 pages of text. So I guess Axel-Springer is a public good.”?

Just buying and selling something doesn’t make it a public good. Valuable sure, but selling something for a profit makes it by definition not a public good.

7. pasc1878 ◴[24 Jan 24 20:53 UTC] No.39122490{3}[source]▶
Hopefully you then confirmed that these issues actually existing using another method,

Relying on a system to say that you are not charging correctly sounds rather like UK's Post Office Horizon system and we know that ChatGPT will hallucinate things,

replies(1): >>39122690 #
8. ◴[24 Jan 24 21:10 UTC] No.39122690{4}[source]▶
9. brcmthrowaway ◴[25 Jan 24 01:47 UTC] No.39125239{3}[source]▶
Your organization sounds like amateur hour, no offence
replies(1): >>39128912 #
10. swalsh ◴[25 Jan 24 12:37 UTC] No.39128912{4}[source]▶
What would you reccomend?