FWIW, Gary Marcus wrote an entire book[1] that, from what I can tell, purports to do that. I have not read the book (yet) so I can't personally attest to how well it meets that goal, but at least be aware that it exists.
[1]: https://www.amazon.com/Rebooting-AI-Building-Artificial-Inte...
In any case, it was clear that he doesn't care at all about the "Open" part of OpenAI and that he sees a future where everybody use OpenAI services rather than having their own, powerful private models. I'd say our interests are very much in opposition.
But the worst to me, by far, is to make OpenAI a for-profit organisation that does not release the models. More than that, he ordered to kill official support for other projects like OpenGym and others. The impact of this change does not matter. It is dishonest and possibly has some level of illegality in it. He is literally surfing the hype as did the crypto guys.
I do not think Gary Marcus has anything interesting to say about current AI, and by that, I mean anything that's not a cheap gotcha, restatement of an obvious fact, or something entirely disingenuous.
This is a problem I have with a lot of people in the AI safety or criticism space. There's a lot to criticize LLMs and AI for. There are a lot of real and concerning things that can cause real world harm, with systems we have __now__. But attacking him or any of the AI doomer/X-risk stuff just muddies the waters and makes those real conversations near impossible to have. Just primes people the wrong way. I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I'm not surprised by people that think these two groups are on the same side. Just seems like a lot of attention seeking and we can fight the hype without creating a different kind of hype...
He and his orbiters have done real an irreparable harm to the Internet while profiting enormously from unlicensed copyrighted works (aka piracy).
"Open" "AI" is pure hypocrisy, an embodiment of the two parallel sets of rules: one for the commons and one for the elite.
Sama deserves more than a little pushback on and scrutiny of his claims.
He and his orbiters have done real an irreparable harm to the ecosystem by pushing such intense compute systems unthinkingly.
We can't have discussion of that on HN, though, so the moderator has flagged it.
I still despise the HN policy of "no criticism of tech CEOs" whether official or otherwise.
Try to say something bad about Steve Jobs? Nah that's not "curious conversation".
Whatever.
About your own two downvoted posts: They probably aren't downvoted for the reasons you think! Your opinions are pretty widely shared here. A lot of people agree with you about the copyright issue, about the farcical non-openness of OpenAI, and about the environmental stakes. It's the other bits (insults, complaints about moderation) we can do without.
I think Sam is a bad person who deserves to be insulted. I prefer to call a spade a spade.