Because of AI's surprising history, it's hard to predict when human-level AI might come within reach. When it does, it'll be important to have a leading research institution which can prioritize a good outcome for all over its own self-interest.
We're hoping to grow OpenAI into such an institution. As a non-profit, our aim is to build value for everyone rather than shareholders. Researchers will be strongly encouraged to publish their work, whether as papers, blog posts, or code, and our patents (if any) will be shared with the world. We'll freely collaborate with others across many institutions and expect to work with companies to research and deploy new technologies.
It pretty much sounds like they are doing what they said they are going to do? Expecting some sort of free API feels like entitlement to me. Have you tried running the models? Or training them? They get expensive very very fast. They charge a pretty reasonable amount all things considered. If they didn't have the name "Open" in them and or started as a subsidiary of one of the other 3 tech companies things would have gone a very very different route.
And no, I would not train or run the models, even if they released them. This does not mean I cannot point out the hypocrisy.
Is this a fact or are you speculating? Because the rest of your sentence falls apart if this is not true.
Let's. If I were to rent an instance for short bursts of time, I would be paying many multiples over a constant use instance. If I were to guarantee usage for x years, where the larger the X, the greater the discount. So already the delta between sporadic usage, X years use is large. There is evidence for this price discrepancy within all the cloud providers so this is not speculation. The the price difference is massive.
If you want to save even more cost, you could rent out VPSes or baremetal. They are insanely cheap, and compared to an AWS on demand instance the difference is night and day. Try comparing Hetzner with AWS. Hetzner, as far as I can tell, is not trying to entrench me into their system by offering extremely low prices. Nor are they a charity. I might even say they are an "open" hosting provider. To me it feels like they are passing along most of their savings and taking a small cut.
This is what it feels like to me what openAI is doing. I don't think their prices are so low its unprofitable. But because of their immense scale, its so much cheaper than me running an instance. I don't have to jump into conspiracy land to come up with a reasoning.
You seemed to want to speculate about how this is all some conniving trap based on their price and I simply pointed out why that's bad speculation using an example in a different industry. I rest my case.
Examples I can think of off the top of my head: OpenGL (1992), OpenAL (2003?), OpenCL (2009), OpenCV (2000).
While looking up those dates though, it seems like OpenAL is now under a proprietary license, which annoys me for the same reason OpenAI annoys me.
LLaMA
Please show me viable harm of GPT-4 that is higher than the potential harm from open sourced image generators with really good fine tuning. I'll wait, most likely forever.
they're just not open source. they never called themselves OpenSourceAI. people get an inch of openness and expect the doors wide open and i think that is unfairly hostile.