Ask HN: Is the “open” in OpenAI just “open-washing”?
10 comments
It was originally meant to be a non profit, funded by a bunch of really rich people. Turns out that they didn't have enough money to get to AGI and Elon wasn't willing to fund enough of it, rather preferring to develop AI at Tesla.
So they went for profit, then doubled down and got into bed with Microsoft. There's a cap on profit though, a limit on ROI that investors can take. Past that point it goes back into the non profit organisation.
There is some openness though - they purposely made ChatGPT mostly free and the API extremely cheap so that it's accessible to everyone, not just the rich.
So they went for profit, then doubled down and got into bed with Microsoft. There's a cap on profit though, a limit on ROI that investors can take. Past that point it goes back into the non profit organisation.
There is some openness though - they purposely made ChatGPT mostly free and the API extremely cheap so that it's accessible to everyone, not just the rich.
> Am I missing something?
What you're missing is how dead this horse is.
What you're missing is how dead this horse is.
> What you're missing is how dead this horse is.
Nah, it should be mentioned as often as possible, like Mark Zuckerberg stating They "trust me". Dumb fucks. Only appropriate drawing attention when an organization is deceiving.
Nah, it should be mentioned as often as possible, like Mark Zuckerberg stating They "trust me". Dumb fucks. Only appropriate drawing attention when an organization is deceiving.
How did they decieve you, exactly? If you're only sore about their name, I think that's as poor of an argument as saying Microsoft's software ought to be smaller to match their namesake. OpenAI, as ironic as their naming convention is, owes you nothing.
This is truly and honestly the deadest of horses. You may as well just stop referring to them as OpenAI and s/OpenAI/Microsoft AI Team. It's your choice to get mad about it, but making threads about it changes nothing. Even discussing it in these threads accomplishes nothing. Sam Altman just laughs and pours himself another Perrier, you'd think a site full of business enthusiasts would know how the game works by now.
This is truly and honestly the deadest of horses. You may as well just stop referring to them as OpenAI and s/OpenAI/Microsoft AI Team. It's your choice to get mad about it, but making threads about it changes nothing. Even discussing it in these threads accomplishes nothing. Sam Altman just laughs and pours himself another Perrier, you'd think a site full of business enthusiasts would know how the game works by now.
What is the incentive of corporate apologists such as this to come in and defend a company that they have no equity in and that might monopolize LLMs causing tears in societies?
Who's defending? Parent comment is saying this discussion is boring. I agree with parent comment.
We get it, it's not open. Yeah we know. We hashed this out thoroughly back in 2018 when they changed. Nothing changed as a result of that, they are still named OpenAI.
At least search "how come openai isn't open" first!
We get it, it's not open. Yeah we know. We hashed this out thoroughly back in 2018 when they changed. Nothing changed as a result of that, they are still named OpenAI.
At least search "how come openai isn't open" first!
How is someone pointing this is a dead horse that gets brought up every other day a “corporate apologist”?
Where, exactly, did they defend the stance? All they did was point out that it’s been said ad nauseam.
Where, exactly, did they defend the stance? All they did was point out that it’s been said ad nauseam.
Because democratized models already exist.
Also because many people (even on this site) have already tried lobbying for software freedom and lost.
Also because many people (even on this site) have already tried lobbying for software freedom and lost.
Am I missing something?