> That and avoiding openAI and Anthropic copying our results and leaving us with nothing to show for six months of work.
Isn't the POINT of publishing research because you want others to copy it?
Isn't the POINT of publishing research because you want others to copy it?
The most common attitude is something closer to "I want to be well known and respected by smart and influential people". In short, prestige.
People using your work is a side effect of success, but simultaneously threatens your ownership of your "brand". If they significantly improve upon the thing you did, your work could be made irrelevant, your prestige ruined.
That would clearly demonstrate it had real substance beyond hot air or puffery.
Better to silo yourself and move in to the penthouse.
There is not an obvious path to making this research public again. That's the reality. For open source to be competitive it needs to be approximately as efficient as the best systems we design.
Listing on stock exchange of ai product requires open sourcing parts or all of your publicly trained stack.
Double or triple taxes on companies that do not provide for public good.
Will this happen, probably when the market crashes and people want companies and individuals to pay. Really matters if it’s a 2008 crash or a 1929 crash where the bankers and stock brokers were jumping out of upper stories.
I thought "recursive self improvement" would bring an effective abundance for everybody, any minute now, Musk said so himself. Seems the researchers in the field are lying to us about it while they clutch their pearls and dream about other people's money as if the future is a dog-eats-dog world of death-inducing scarcity.
They shouldn't be lying like that, or at least, their lying shouldn't be so obvious.
Recursive self improvement is a blue skies longer term thing. No one technical is saying that it's live right now.
Also 20 years is a crazy long time in some industries (like most software).
For startups, no, because the point of that is to make money.
Once the business is making money it’s not really a startup any more, it’s a going concern.
OP is an undergrad student. Attracting attention is what will make them stand out. And sharing research at this stage will probably expose them to research others don’t want to publish but do want to share with other researchers.
Investors with money.
What are investors who don’t have money?
Perhaps I should have said investors and speculators, but this doesn’t help you here.
OP's startup is publishing because they think there's an economic advantage to doing so. That's not good or bad; it just is.
Very, very few things in the tech world are done "just because". Even fewer things when we're talking about AI being developed in the US. For better or for worse, the leadership in that segment of our field has established profit motive as their god.
Quite reductionist.
But I don't disagree.
To rephrase it more bluntly: the difference between normal business and a modern startup is that between a cow bred for milking vs. a pig bred for slaughter.
EDIT: That's crap. I only thought about the aspect of continuing sharing, but if you also don't want your direct customers to know, then of course open source is very much relevant.
In practice, if you use an actual open source license in a B2B setting, it's best to assume that your software will become available to the general public (e.g. it just takes one person to publish it on GitHub).
Yes, you are right.
> In practice, if you use an actual open source license in a B2B setting, it's best to assume that your software will become available to the general public
If that is your trust level in your customer, you also need to assume, that they would also give away the binary. I don't think you generally need that level of distrust in a customer.