Is there anything we could do to have them stop calling themselves OpenAI ?
They are so far from open at this point.
In Germany at least, you're not allowed to have a misleading name for your company
They are so far from open at this point.
In Germany at least, you're not allowed to have a misleading name for your company
they're just not open source. they never called themselves OpenSourceAI. people get an inch of openness and expect the doors wide open and i think that is unfairly hostile.
LLaMA
Please show me viable harm of GPT-4 that is higher than the potential harm from open sourced image generators with really good fine tuning. I'll wait, most likely forever.
Because of AI's surprising history, it's hard to predict when human-level AI might come within reach. When it does, it'll be important to have a leading research institution which can prioritize a good outcome for all over its own self-interest.
We're hoping to grow OpenAI into such an institution. As a non-profit, our aim is to build value for everyone rather than shareholders. Researchers will be strongly encouraged to publish their work, whether as papers, blog posts, or code, and our patents (if any) will be shared with the world. We'll freely collaborate with others across many institutions and expect to work with companies to research and deploy new technologies.
It pretty much sounds like they are doing what they said they are going to do? Expecting some sort of free API feels like entitlement to me. Have you tried running the models? Or training them? They get expensive very very fast. They charge a pretty reasonable amount all things considered. If they didn't have the name "Open" in them and or started as a subsidiary of one of the other 3 tech companies things would have gone a very very different route.
And no, I would not train or run the models, even if they released them. This does not mean I cannot point out the hypocrisy.
Is this a fact or are you speculating? Because the rest of your sentence falls apart if this is not true.
Let's. If I were to rent an instance for short bursts of time, I would be paying many multiples over a constant use instance. If I were to guarantee usage for x years, where the larger the X, the greater the discount. So already the delta between sporadic usage, X years use is large. There is evidence for this price discrepancy within all the cloud providers so this is not speculation. The the price difference is massive.
If you want to save even more cost, you could rent out VPSes or baremetal. They are insanely cheap, and compared to an AWS on demand instance the difference is night and day. Try comparing Hetzner with AWS. Hetzner, as far as I can tell, is not trying to entrench me into their system by offering extremely low prices. Nor are they a charity. I might even say they are an "open" hosting provider. To me it feels like they are passing along most of their savings and taking a small cut.
This is what it feels like to me what openAI is doing. I don't think their prices are so low its unprofitable. But because of their immense scale, its so much cheaper than me running an instance. I don't have to jump into conspiracy land to come up with a reasoning.
You seemed to want to speculate about how this is all some conniving trap based on their price and I simply pointed out why that's bad speculation using an example in a different industry. I rest my case.
Examples I can think of off the top of my head: OpenGL (1992), OpenAL (2003?), OpenCL (2009), OpenCV (2000).
While looking up those dates though, it seems like OpenAL is now under a proprietary license, which annoys me for the same reason OpenAI annoys me.
Open could now mean available to use for free.
I and I suspect many others would not be averse to this
These words are not synonymous with each other: “open” is not inherently free, “free” is not inherently open, and “free” is not inherently “Free”.
They each capture notions that are often orthogonal, occasionally related, and almost always generate tedious debates about freedom vs. free goods, open-ness vs. open-source, etc.
But setting all of that aside, Microsoft never claimed (until recent shifts towards embracing FOSS) to be building an open and non-profit foundation.
The criticisms of OpenAI are reasonable to an extent, not because they are not open, but because they made claims about openness that are looking less and less likely to be true over time.
Except they already drew that line long ago, when they started out open-sourcing their papers, models and code.
As soon as they took VC capital, it is hardly 'Open' is it? Especially when they are now giving excuses for closing off their research?:
From the technical paper [0]
>> Given both the competitive landscape and the safety implications of large-scale models like GPT-4, this report contains no further details about the architecture (including model size), hardware, training compute, dataset construction, training method, or similar.
At this point, they are no better than DeepMind.
With every model they get more closed. This is the first time they are so closed that they don't even tell you the parameter count.