Hacker News Reader

Comment by wraptile | Hacker News Reader

OpenAI turning out to be a total bait and switch. Especially true when your co-founder is actively calling you out on it[1]

Remember kids: if it's not a non-profit organization it is a _for_ profit one! It was silly to expect anything else:

> In 2019, OpenAI transitioned from non-profit to for-profit. The company distributed equity to its employees and partnered with Microsoft Corporation, who announced an investment package of US$1 billion into the company. OpenAI then announced its intention to commercially license its technologies, with Microsoft as its preferred partner [2]

1 - https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/27/tech/elon-musk-tesla-bill...

2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAI

View on HN

It will be interesting to see the attitude of Microsoft towards this project in the light of their "Microsoft loves open source" propaganda.

I don't know where people got this idea that Microsoft can't participate positively in Open Source, and do that sincerely, without open sourcing absolutely everything.

Of course they can - just because you contribute to open source, and do that because you also benefit from open source projects, doesn't mean you have to do absolutely everything under open source.

Especially considering OpenAI isn't even Microsoft's IP or codebase.

> I don't know where people got this idea that Microsoft can't participate positively in Open Source, and do that sincerely, without open sourcing absolutely everything.

I'm not claiming that. Of course there is place for closed and open elements of their offerings. Let me clarify.

In the past, Microsoft was very aggressive about open source. When they realized this strategy of FUD brings little result, they changed their attitude 180 and decided to embrace it putting literal hearts everywhere.

Personally, I find it hypocritical. There is no love/hate, just business. They will use whatever strategy works to get their advantage. What I find strange is that people fell for it.

But why on this thread then, about GPT-3? It's not even their own company, IP or source to give away.

But even when Microsoft can't open source it because it's not theirs, we still have people posting in this thread that this is further evidence that Microsoft is hypocritical. It sounds a lot like a form of Confirmation Bias to me where any evidence is used as proof that Microsoft is 'anti-open-source'.

I think it is because each model from OpenAi was public until Microsoft became an investor.

How about when Steve Ballmer said something along the lines of

“Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches”

Pretty sure that is hostile towards open source? Linux being one of the flagship projects of open source.

[edit] source https://www.zdnet.com/article/ex-windows-chief-heres-why-mic...

Disclaimer: Microsoft employee

In my experience, I work at a completely different company than the one that Ballmer ran. Nearly everyone I talk to speaks of the "Ballmer era" in a negative light, and confirms that Satya literally turned the entire company on its head.

Many things happen every day that would never have happened under Ballmer.

It’s hostile to the GPL licence which means anything licensed under GPL can’t be used in Microsoft’s proprietary products.

I would personally say Microsoft wasn’t necessarily driven by anti open-source hate necessarily, they were just very anti-competitor. Microsoft tried to compete with their biggest competitor? Colour me shocked.

I don't think this should be seen in the light of "open source everything" but more that many see Microsoft doing open source not as part of "being good" but part of their age old "embrace extend extinguish" policy.

I don't know where people got the idea that companies can be "sincere." Sincerity is faithfully communicating your mental state to others. A company's mental state can change on a dime based on the decisionmaking of people who rely on the company for the degree of profit it generates. Any analog to sincerity that you think you see can probably be eliminated by firing one person after an exceptionally bad quarter (or an exceptionally good one.)

Sincere to me just means that you are being truthful, or not trying to be deceptive.

And I think companies can be sincere - because companies are really just groups of people and assets when you get down to the nuts and bolts of it.

> companies can be sincere

"sincere", "honest", "hypocritical" usually refers to a long-term pattern. Being able to be sincere from time to time is besides the point.

> companies are really just groups of people

...with profit as their first priority.

For-profit companies "can be sincere" only as long as it's the most profitable strategy.

Like many other companies, Microsoft loves unpaid labor.

Free Software is about giving freedom and security all the way to the end users - rather than SaaS providers.

If you remove this goal and only focus on open source as a development methodology you end up with something very similar to volunteering for free for some large corporation.

So OpenAI employees get Microsoft RSUs?

What is an RSU?

It means restricted stock unit, and it's a kind of company stock unit that may be distributed to some "valued" employees. There is usually a vesting schedule, and you can't do whatever you want with it.

Restricted Stock Units

Why would they? It's a separate company.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com