Hacker News Reader

Comment by ninjin | Hacker News Reader

The authors did exactly that in the paper which the articles attempts to summarise:

https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3630106.3659005#page=6

Interesting, I wonder why it was omitted in Springer's top tier journal Nature? Oh yeah: https://openai.com/index/axel-springer-partnership/

Edit: Looks like the science publishing company is "operated independently", despite family ties - https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-cms/rest/v1/c...

Why include OpenAI's non open source models in a list of open source wannabes?

Because it's officially "open" AI?

The entire article is about the semantics of the word "open", so an organization literally named "OpenAI" is obviously relevant on the article's own terms.

Besides which, this is a summary of a research paper that DID include OpenAI on the list. Omitting it is one of several choices that change the takeaways of the paper (linked above), which did a much better job at acknowledging and sorting the benefits of different varieties of "open"-ness.

Overall, TFA takes a cherrypicked scope on the naming controversy that hides the fact that some participants are contributing much more to public research and access than others.

There are no family ties. These are two completely different companies.

Axel Springer is the company that bought Politico (and produces rags like Bild in Germany).

Springer Nature is majority owned by Holtzbrinck, a competitor to Axel Springer.

Thx. The Springer Nature PDF is somehow STILL confusing as it addresses family ties to NY but not to Axel Springer. However, I guess my priors regarding family business were overstrong.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com