Hacker News Reader

Comment by icapybara | Hacker News Reader

Should they not be able to make money off a world changing new technology they bet billions on?

Does your company offer all its products for free?

I think it was borderline defensible for them to not release the weights, but now they aren't even telling people the size of the model.

From their website:

>Our mission is to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity

I pay for ChatGPT Plus and have paid a fair bit in OpenAI API fees; I don't care that they are making money. The problem is the openwashing, not the monetization.

The problem with the name isn't that they're charging. It's that they're implying that they're something in the ballpark of open source when they're not.

OpenTable isn't Open Source. Open, as a word, has more than one context.

But OpenTable was never open source to begin with, so that association was never made.

Open AI started with a commitment to being open source (thus the "open"), but then they changed their minds and went closed source. I think in this context, keeping the "Open" in their name is a bit deceptive.

It's not the biggest issue in the world, admittedly, but it does leave a bad taste in the mouth.

Oh! that's new information for me. That case does feel like a -n-switch.

OpenTable references restaurants tables and times that are still open to be reserved.

What contextual definition of "open" does OpenAI have? A website open to subscribers?

A website open to subscribers?

You can scoff at this but Google's models weren't available at any price before today.

An open API you can build products off of. Consider the alternative. They could not let anyone use their models and just release AI products (their own search engine, their own version of Teams, their own self driving car software, their own photoshop competitor, etc).

This is revisionist history. OpenAI very much started as a (somewhat) open source (for whatever definition of "open" makes sense for LLMs) initiative.

I’m not arguing they stuck with their original position. I’m saying the name is still reasonable. I don’t care if they changed positions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com