←back to thread

OpenAI scrapped a promise to disclose key documents to the public

(www.wired.com)
614 points nickthegreek | 1 comments | 24 Jan 24 19:21 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
mgreg ◴[24 Jan 24 19:55 UTC] No.39121867[source]▶
Unsurprising but disappointing none-the-less. Let’s just try to learn from it.

It’s popular in the AI space to claim altruism and openness; OpenAI, Anthropic and xAI (the new Musk one) all have a funky governance structure because they want to be a public good. The challenge is once any of these (or others) start to gain enough traction that they are seen as having a good chance at reaping billions in profits things change.

And it’s not just AI companies and this isn’t new. This is art of human nature and will always be.

We should be putting more emphasis and attention on truly open AI models (open training data, training source code & hyperparameters, model source code, weights) so the benefits of AI accrue to the public and not just a few companies.

[edit - eliminated specific company mentions]

replies(17): >>39122377 #>>39122548 #>>39122564 #>>39122633 #>>39122672 #>>39122681 #>>39122683 #>>39122910 #>>39123084 #>>39123321 #>>39124167 #>>39124930 #>>39125603 #>>39126566 #>>39126621 #>>39127428 #>>39132151 #
RespectYourself ◴[24 Jan 24 21:05 UTC] No.39122633[source]▶
OpenAI: pioneer in the field of fraudulently putting "open" in your name and being anything but.
replies(5): >>39122838 #>>39126517 #>>39127309 #>>39130117 #>>39132836 #
quantum_state ◴[24 Jan 24 21:26 UTC] No.39122838[source]▶
Similar naming pattern, like North Korea calls itself “ Democratic People's Republic of Korea” … it cannot be further from being democratic.
replies(4): >>39122913 #>>39123123 #>>39123586 #>>39124478 #
RespectYourself ◴[24 Jan 24 21:58 UTC] No.39123123[source]▶
Nice comparison. And also certain political factions in the USA try to hide the shamefulness of laws they propose by giving them names that are directly opposed to what they'll do.

The "Defense of Marriage Act" comes to mind. There was one so bad that a judge ordered the authors to change it, but I can't find it at the moment.

replies(4): >>39123299 #>>39124107 #>>39124527 #>>39136897 #
1. RespectYourself ◴[25 Jan 24 00:19 UTC] No.39124527[source]▶
Actually, that's my mistake. The examples I was thinking of turned out to be one and the same: It was a California proposition originally titled the "California Marriage Protection Act." That was the one where a judge forced it to be renamed to "Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment"