steno132

Many comments are criticizing the fact that this only runs in the cloud. And if Microsoft instead announced this would only run locally, they would instead be deploring the massive remote code execution vulnerabilities that this opens.

For this feature, there's no question that providing it in the cloud is much, much better for security. Microsoft can now execute the Python code in Firecracker VMs which provide much better sandboxing than your local PC could.

The fundamental disconnect is that we as technologists believe we are entitled to technology. That technology should be open. And, for the most part, it is.

However, if you look at the most sensitive technologies, whether it's nuclear weapons or until recently cryptography, they're never open. The risk of them falling into the wrong hands is too high.

AI seems to us like any other software, as people who may understand it and its limitations. However, it's also a tool for unfathomable destruction -- not now, but in the coming years.

And so restrictions are almost certain to happen, and according to many, justified. You're not going to have access to "un-censored AI" in the coming years. That's unfortunately reality.

There are significant safety risks with this approach.

Current foundation AI models have safeguards in place to avoid generating content that could be used for disinformation, violence, and terrorism.

While not perfect, these safeguards have meant that we've been able to use ChatGPT over the last couple months, without a major backlash due to the technology being used for destructive purposes and it potentially being closed (as has happened many times before).

Compare these two websites:

http://www.columbia.edu/~fdc/sample.html

https://www.columbia.edu

Which one is: * Easier to navigate?

* Nicer to to look at?

We don't live in a HTML only world because no one wants to live in a HTML only world. Some techies might but 99% of ordinary people do not.

No one wants to look at black and white text all day, with every website looking exactly the same.

If this is what people wanted, then you'd see a lot more of these plain HTML websites. But you don't.

Horrible idea. Really what the regulation states is that iMessage must be interoperable with other chat apps.

In order words, if it wants to improve its service, it will need to get buy in from a committee of its competitors.

This is a solution in search of a problem. Consumers today can choose from iMessage, Telegram, WhatsApp, Slack, Google Chat. There's competition, and there's so many great options for each person. This regulation can only make things worse.

If OpenAI wanted to exit, Microsoft would be happy to buy them immediately for tens of billions. They're already valued at $30B. Why haven't they?

OpenAI never promised to be open source.

They promised to create a lab where the benefits of AI would accrue to the people, not just existing tech giants.

They did that. They created a API where individuals and small businesses alike can use cutting edge AI technology via API. You have to pay, that's the only catch.

I don't see a DeepMind API. I don't see an Anthropic API. I don't see a Google Bard API. I don't see a FB Galactica API.

I hope OpenAI wins this battle.

OpenAI released a ChatGPT API while reducing the cost by 10x.

For those claiming OpenAI is for profit: Why would OpenAI do this if they were fixated on making money?

Also, while I wish OpenAI released the code for ChatGPT, I applaud OpenAI for actually making their AI model available, to everyone, right now.

* Google hyped their Bard chatbot...but where is it?

* Facebook took down Galatica.

* Even Bing Chat has a waitlist

OpenAI is not for profit. It's capped profit.

Inventing AGI, which Sam Altman and Greg Brockman believe they can do, would make them our species' first trillionaires. Their personal net worths would rival the GDPs of several G8 nations.

If they cared so much about money, why would they intentionally limit their upside to 100x? I have not heard a single good answer.

The author forgot the most important part.

Everyone at Stripe is nice, we show gratitude, we value diversity, the founders sit at open desks and eat lunch with the employees but at the end of the day, it's all a thin facade. A thin facade masking the fact that Stripe is a company, like any other company is.

For all the talk about wellness, the founders of the most valuable private company in the US brutally fired 10% of their workforce a couple weeks ago. The Collisons did not give up their equity, they did not take a pay cut, their executives did not take a pay cut, their executives were not laid off.

People like patio11, Jeff Weinstein, the author vocally and repeatedly praise Stripe. But Stripe doesn't reciprocate their adulation. It doesn't feel the same way. They 're intelligent people, so this should be obvious, but I guess it's not.

Stripe doesn't care about them at all outside of their ability to produce for Stripe. And if they stopped producing, sure, the Collisons would give them some grace period. But then they would fire them mercilessly (as they have already done).