OpenAI should be called ClosedAI | Hacker News Reader

OpenAI should be called ClosedAI

61 points1331tt19 comments

From the GPT-4 paper: "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."

While OpenAI's goal of creating AGI is admirable, the approach is anything but Open, and I fear pushing research for the industry more broadly into closed territory and restricted to the hands of a few - under the guise of maintaining AI safety.

A few data points:

- Transition from non-profit to "capped-profit" corporation (investment returns up to 100x) in 2019

- GPT-2: "phased rollout"

- GPT-3: parameter weights not released

- GPT-4: no details about # of parameters, architecture, research details, and certainly not parameter weights

The latest move would also encourage other industry players to restrict research detail disclosure (as otherwise OpenAI would be in an unfairly advantageous position by having access to others' work)

I guess I have a question here:

Both this post and many many many posts in the main GPT-4 thread are making this same point.

I get it. They started out as OpenAI, and they've realized over time that business is much better if they're not actually Open.

So my questions is: So what? We're spending a lot of energy collectively complaining about the company's name. I think, for lack of a better term, we really kind of need to get over it. They've made their choice, they're not the original OpenAI they once were, and that's that. They have about as much obligation to change their name as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea does to change its name :)

Sometimes names are just...names.

(Apologies if this is coming across as snarkier than it should. I'm not trying to be hostile. I just think we should stop caring about this.)

I think the word "open" meant a lot of good things when I started learning computer science. It meant that people shared knowledge in this complex world of technology. It helped lift everyone in tech. OpenAI just puts that on it's head and moves on.

When OpenAI came along, I felt like this was all going in the right direction and that it would do what I felt was the right way about it. I'm disappointed and I think they should change their name. I know it will fall on deaf ears, but since you're asking "So what?" that's my answer.

It's important to remind ourselves that OpenAI is full of shit starting from the foundation, especially when they get into bed with companies with histories like Microsoft's and weave tall tales of AI safety and ethics. This technology is too important not to hold them to account.

> This technology is too important not to hold them to account.

By complaining about the company name? Also, nobody has a monopoly on "this technology". Are you suggesting we say to people you're not allowed to develop and deploy LLMs?

people give flak to google for their "don't be evil" motto (and their inoffensive, "friendly" and colorful branding) to this day, so this is just fine.

wondering about what happened to some company's initial or former values, or about whitewashy branding that projects some kind of image that doesn't really line up with the company's actions, is all good and well. it's a relevant and worthwhile conversation about consumer awareness, when moves like this influence consumers and make them think some kind of way about a company.

something like, 'well, I use OpenAI, and they're probably good? they're "open"? this is a responsible consumer choice, and they probably make responsible choices too? or so it seems.' would those things turn out to be really true? maybe not so much. and AI companies, more than anyone would like to have you believe that you, and they as well, are making "responsible choices", while engaging in unabashed and enormous data collection.

having more consumer awareness, and being a responsible consumer (and creator, or company), is something that AI field could really use. more of that, over vague "it's AI!" handwaving.

Extremely well-put. Thank you!

I never understand these types of comments. We are discussing the exact thing you are dismissing. Your comment adds literally zero value.

It’s a tweet level post that deserves to be a comment thread at best.

What discussion can it bring other than 1) yeah they should change their name or 2) since when do pitchfork mobs rename companies?

What value is there in this conversation? This whole post adds zero value.

Also, wonder how many people confuse OpenAI as being a "product" of some other big company, like Google, or Microsoft. Their branding is just that nondescript. (or maybe it's just me lol.) Though, now that Google has been very openly panicking, and had that featured prominently in the news, maybe that mix up has been somewhat clarified.

It is a very interesting branding choice though, one that kinda should be studied, because the way it's set up, it's somewhat diverting, or diluting reputational risks (like, having "bad vibes" be ascribed to a 'bigger entity' that doesn't actually exist), and creating an image that doesn't actually align with reality (such as, being "open" in name only). It's kinda like that "bland brands" thing, but here, the 'tech company' mimicry ends up working somewhat differently, at this big of a scale.

So I was also curious why they bought "safety" into it too. What are the actual risks we should be worried about here and considering they cannot keep this genie in the bottle for long, what happens once these secrets are leaked and at least others with malicious intentions has unfettered access to such a tool?

This is such an engineering mindset. Everyone else knows that the name doesn't contain rules about operations of the company, and never expected that calling it OpenAI meant that's what it would be.

The name itself might not, but the company’s model has changed drastically since it was founded.

Not sure why people think that this isn’t something you shouldn’t be able to criticize.

It would be more accurate to think of OpenAI as "AI as a service", so just as open as any other SaaS. But they do have good reasons to be secretive. It would be a much bigger problem if they start, say, suing other companies in the AI space for violating their patents or something.

OpenAI is open in the sense that it makes its modes freely available by API for the lowest price in the industry. Open doesnt have to mean Open Source.

I say only this... i wait to try.

PartialAI

SelloutAI

Open Gangnam style...

Or else called $OPNAI.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com