Hacker News Reader

Comment by 3cats-in-a-coat | Hacker News Reader

He was always sketchy, and the whole way he handles OpenAI is also extremely sketchy with pushing for regulation that in effect protects OpenAI's products against competition and forms a soft-to-hard government monopoly on AI (the exact opposite of OpenAI's initial mission).

And yet, they did bring us GPT, and inspired the world to go in this direction, including the open-source models by Meta.

History is always messy like this. And another proof of this will be if this tech becomes the beginning of the end of our civilization, but that's just me thinking out loud here.

View on HN

Artificial fertilizer (which feeds billions of people worldwide) was invented by the same guy who ran the German chemical weapons program in WWI.

the whole way he handles OpenAI is also extremely sketchy with pushing for regulation that in effect protects OpenAI's products against competition and forms a soft-to-hard government monopoly on AI

To me, that's the least sketchy part of OpenAI.

The part that gets me is where one day it's promoted as the future, and will be integrated into every part of our lives. And the very next day, the same guy is telling newspapers that AI is so scary and potentially destructive that it absolutely must be regulated by governments.

It's like being so proud of continually building new and improved nuclear bombs, and then telling the government that it better build a bunch of nuclear bomb shelters for everyone.

> including the open-source models by Meta

"open-source"

Infinitely more open than the ones from "Open"-Ai

I don't think Open Source is a gradient, it's a boolean. Either something is Open Source or it's not. Neither Llama nor OpenAI is Open Source.

I disagree, it's functionally a gradient because the label encompasses different assumptions when different people say it. (It's even more vague than the US' "freedom of speech", since it lacks a bunch of case-law precedent.)

You're saying clear-cut objective lines exist--where exactly do you believe they are placed?

Not saying this is the "objective truth", but the OSD does a good job of helping you find a clear-cut line when something is "Open Source" (in common parlor) or not: https://opensource.org/osd/

Again, not everyone agrees with those of course, and I guess that's fine. But I think most software developers who are in the FOSS ecosystem could agree that Llama is not "Open Source" as most people understand the term.

Freely readable and mutable weights doesn’t have the same ring to it.

God forbid we could be accurate with the terms we use.

"Open access"?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com