This is a clever piece of marketing by Vice!

Fun satire?!

> This piece of satire was possible with the help of ChatGPT.

IMO, a bit late. This is known for a few years already. But that doesn't make it wrong.

Is there a word for the opposite of the euphemism treadmill, where people call ordinary things by worse and worse names trying to get an emotional reaction out of people?

> a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.

Is it not a deceitful pretense to call your "non-profit" OpenAI, make grandiose statements about openness and accessibility, only to do the complete opposite and surrender yourself to the first corporation that throws the big bucks at you?

It's a fraud.

Replace OpenAI with 'Microsoft® AI'. It is still the same and accurate.

isn't there any integrity left in America?

I'm sorry but from an outside perspective of a foreigner living in the US... Integrity has never been something that comes to mind when I think of this country. Business, money and profits first. Whatever goes.

And it's fine, that's how y'all are as a country. So far it worked.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't know what the law allows regulators to do, but I wouldn't mind if the government forced ClosedAI to change its name under some sort of truth in advertising law.

More importantly, we tech folks have specialized knowledge and it's our responsibility to not propagate harmful, deceptive propaganda like the OpenAI name. Especially for something as widely known and culturally relevant as ClosedAI. I've personally been calling it ClosedAI for a while now. When people ask I give them a quick 5 second explanation.

Another example, much less bad than ClosedAI, is "iPhone." It's not your phone, you don't control it. Apple can run and inject whatever code they want onto your ("i") Phone, and you can't make the phone run software which isn't approved by Apple. I personally refer to it as an ApplePhone (and ApplePad, Apple Mobile OS instead of iOS, etc.). I'll admit this is a pretty weak example; the name clearly has non-nefarious origins. But in the modern day, at a subtle psychological level, it's still misleading in an Orwellian sort of way. And it brings up a good opportunity to give "normal" people a quick 15-second intro to software freedom.

The entire notion of "open source" will start to blur with "source-available" and even with "freemium SaaS" in the minds of an entire generation using a closed product called OpenAI to do their homework. How does OpenOffice distinguish itself from Google Docs when the word "open" means nothing? (Yes, LibreOffice, I see you there, but sadly your "fetch" is not going to happen in the English speaking world!)

One might say, "non-programmers don't need to know this" - but of course they do. They should know that a product that is truly open is guaranteed to be available so long as a community wants it to be - not at the whims of a corporation that could take away a freemium tier or revoke someone's ability to build code derived from a source-available license at will. And I fear this will take at least some wind out of the sails of a lot of incredible projects.

Every time any open source project tries to make money, people quickly fork the project into a similar free-as-beer one: "OpenSomething wants my money? I'll fork it into LibreSomething then"

At this point, the point made by RMS that people can make money selling FOSS software just fine is naive at best.

To the extent that the “i” means anything at all it does stand for “internet”.

But it's a lost battle, isn't it? :) We're tilting at windmills.

If this is parody, I think there is a good chance it's libel.

Edit: I now see every link on the page redirects to the vice article.

“Acknowledgments This piece of satire was possible with the help of ChatGPT.”

I think the underlying challenge is not going to be easily solved.

If the ChatGPT API is indeed more powerful than `text-davinci-003`, then the predatory pricing creates a ton of incentives towards trust monopoly territory. Why would our apps struggle to put up a BLOOM or GPT-NeoX instance if it ends up more expensive?

This is possibly going to be one of the most egregious, hard-to-resist traps of our time.

But of course the page is fake/parody, so the misattribution continues. Well, it fits well to the Microsoft we knew 10-20 years ago.

Edit: note, we're also using our own technology to point out and apply for patents that include the combined usage of our exclusive technology in order to protect our creative investments.

BP officially rebranded to "beyond petroleum".

Now, suppose you "Open" the OpenAI, by giving the information about the model and data, all of that -- the only ones who would empower by that kind of openness -- is the very large corporations and the governments of powerful countries rather than people evenly.

So, while distributing the AI power evenly in the society ("democratize AI") was the original motivation of OpenAI group, and founding it as a non-profit may have motivated researchers and capable engineers join the effort, the reason why it isn't staying "open" is simply, because they had not yet figured out how to "Empower people evenly", rather than empower large governments and corporations through such openness.

> This organization has no public repositories.

A nice touch