Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and feuding

Re:Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and fe... by hutzlibu on Tuesday November 21, 2023 @09:11PM (#38373742)

"OpenAI had the right idea. Keep the source closed if you must, and invest heavily on safety, but make the benefits available to all."

Well, you see the result. Apart from this drama, lots of debate and speculation whether we are already in AGI territory, because it is all just a black box and no one knows what exactly was in the training data to be able to judge the quality of the output.

That is way too much AI priesthood for me, just open it for real, if you don't want concentration of power.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Before Altman’s ouster, OpenAI’s board was divided and fe... by danenania on Tuesday November 21, 2023 @09:21PM (#38373822)

Yeah that's certainly a debate worth having.

My point is this coup against OpenAI (seemingly) wasn't started by people who want to make AI more open. They want to make it inaccessible unless you're in their club. To my reading, that is more starkly opposed to the charter than anything Sam Altman has done. Commercialization = giving wide access. Not total 100% open source access, but wide access nonetheless.

[ Parent | on HN ]