Hacker News Reader

I don’t think Musk is a very reliable narrator in general, and given the history he’s probably particularly unreliable in the context of OpenAI.

As far as I know, the terms of their deal with Microsoft aren’t public, but all the reporting I’ve seen has suggested the opposite - that OpenAI basically kept full control over anything resembling the crown jewels. And why wouldn’t they? It was a frothier market when the deal was made, and it’s not like they couldn’t have raised capital from dozens of other sources.

Do you think Microsoft would actually take a risk like that? They've invested heavily in Open AI, so I'd be pretty surprised if they don't have access to the IP.

Like you said the legal details aren't public, but I can't imagine they don't have access to some of the IP.

Isn't Microsoft sitting on a huge pile of cash? It seems that having a piece of the AI pie if it's truly going to explode as much as everyone seems to be expecting, plus free access to their APIs, would be reason enough.

This would assume they have no strategy and are just hoping Open AI won’t back out of any deal or somehow degrade their product and then they’d be left in the dark.

I would find this hard to believe.

And to add to this, what would be the point of keeping the terms of the deal secret if it's just a simple investment on the part of MS? You'd think "Open" AI would want would to be open about these things.

And as an initial investor in OpenAI I'd assume that Musk would be connected enough to get details about the deal even if those details haven't been made public.

Was that the same interview in which Elon lied through his teeth and claimed that the Allen, Texas shooter did not hold white supremacist beliefs (despite tons of open source evidence and even the confirmation of local police) and that Bellingcat does psyops?

I can't find any reputable sources that confirm he was a white supremacist. Can you post one of the links you have?

>I can't find any reputable sources that confirm he was a white supremacist.

Yep, there's the weasel word, "reputable."

There are plenty of sources, you can simply google it. What sources would you consider "reputable?"

I believe he is said to have nazi tattoos.

yes ok source?

There is a snopes article which goes over the evidence.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/allen-texas-mall-mass-shoo...

I don’t understand why that means he’s necessarily a white supremacist. For one, chances are he wasn’t all that smart. For two - it could just be that he was an anti-Semite, and so he latched on to Nazi iconography.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/allen-texas-mall-mass-shoo...

Why are you referring to Mauricio Garcia, the Hispanic shooter, as a white supremacist? I read through ten articles about him just now - all of them said he was a white supremacist, none of them bothered explaining how a Hispanic man was a white supremacist. Surely in a sane world one of them would at least pay lip service to explaining that to me, but nope.

Have you ever applied for a job in the US, or answered a census here? White is broken down into Hispanic White and non-Hispanic White in our racial categories. That’s about as official as you can get.

Also consider what “Hispanic” means in the first place. Plus, ultimately, anyone can have any beliefs if they really want to. If you’re non-white and try to be a white supremacist, it’s not like the universe will prevent you from doing so.

It would make you a hispanic supremacist or white hispanic supremacist if using the official categories. Using incorrect labelling is done on purpose to keep a false narrative going and attract more attention.

The media not describing a guy (who checks “Race: White, Ethnicity: Hispanic” on the census), who had a swastika and SS tattoo, as a “Hispanic supremacist” in headlines is maybe the weakest media criticism I’ve ever read.

I have the craziest hunch that maybe you aren’t being genuine, but I’ll leave that alone.

100 genuine. I would have expected them to use the common latin or spanish. Not white supremacist. That feeds into a stereotype that doesn't exist here. It's like labeling the Oklahoma city bomber a muslim terrorist after 9/11 to fit in with the stereotyping of the day.

Suuuuure you're "100% genuine" in suggesting that calling a neo-Nazi with a fondness for sharing violent white supremacist rhetoric a white supremacist is like calling Timothy McVeigh a Muslim, and insisting they ought to focus on the neo-Nazi's Spanish name instead of his "right wing death squad" patches. Can't be having the media accept people as white if they have Spanish names, can we?

So isn't the reason that Mauricio Garcia is labelled as a white supremacist because he himself actually wrote and self-identified as one?

If the Oklahoma city bombers did not leave behind any jihadist or pro-Islam writing of any sort and only left behind their white supremacy stuff I don't think they would have been labelled as Muslim terrorists if they did their attack soon after 9/11. The media very likely would have done something more like "white supremacy as displayed by the Oklahoma City Bombing is similar to the jihadist doctrine displayed by Al-Qaeda". Which is to say the media would have made links between the two (some spurious, some genuine) without actually saying the Oklahoma City Bombing was done by Muslim terrorists. This is so obvious to me to the point that I am beginning to feel empathetic to commenters doubting your being genuine - as much as I hate to admit it since I think trusting others are arguing in good faith is generally a better norm.

Whether the 9/11 era or now when someone commits a crime and actually leaves behind writing where they admit their beliefs, and motivation this is what they get labelled as. Why are you surprised when someone like Mauricio Garcia who admits white supremacist beliefs is then labelled as one by the media? Or is your claim that actually his writing is not white supremacist?

Are white supremacists generally believed to be referring to Hispanics as supreme? If not, I contend it is reasonable for me to have assumed at least one of the ten reports I read would spend a moment addressing this dissonance.

> as part of their deal with Microsoft Microsoft have right to all of OpenAI's model weights. This means at any time Microsoft has the right to take their models and cut off OpenAI's funding.

How does he know this? Is it because the terms of the OpenAI / MSFT deal are public knowledge? Or is he just making it up?

He was an early investor. $50m. Maybe that gives him special access to docs.

It's almost true that they have no moat, or have a small one. Acquisition is the best option for them and the time window for that is closing as it won't be long until every company can afford to create their own gtp4. The value of those weights is going down fast, there are now hundreds of LLMs of medium size, all it takes is for any company to change the parameter size and retrain.

My understanding is that Microsoft gets exclusive licensing to (just) the "GPT" family of technologies. This is why Sam Altman has been hoping to get away from transformers and attention-based methods.

In any case, I'm confident that their researchers could come up with something else if Microsoft truly decided to "take them over". Furthermore, it seems like it's still a mutually beneficial arrangement.

Models are worthless without reproducible training anyway. What good is a point in time model if you can't update it going forward.

Sorry to be pedantic, but I'm failing to see how this is related to the OP?