The online versions of Microsoft office apps are free. What if they renamed those to... OpenOffice?

I laughed out real loud after reading this xD

But really there is so much money in this, and if they can make it they are going to be the next Google.

It should be obvious they don't want to be 'open' in terms of really making this open source.

> They are clearly saying that the word “Open” in their name means nothing.

Similarly Microsoft makes incredibly large software and my letters about this have gone unanswered

Lots of microcomputers.

Microsoft made software for small computers (PCs) not diminutive software

But my PC is enormous compared to my watch

And tiny compared to a mainframe.

Points of reference change.

Any company could do that. If it would make sense for them to do that would depend on the market they were entering though. At the time OpenAI came about companies weren't sharing (selling) AI to the world. Doing so was a point of differentiation. There's Google over there hoarding all of their AI for themselves. Here's us over here providing APIs and free chat interfaces to the general public.

So sure the name means nothing now in a market shaped by OpenAI, where everyone offers APIs and has chat interfaces. It doesn't mean it meant nothing when they picked it or that they abandoned the meaning. The landscape just changed.

AI/AGI is a multiplier. There could have been a world where just Google builds that multipler and only uses it internally. Making that multiplier publicly available can be the "Open" part.

I understand that this particular audience is very sensitive about the term, but why are we being so childish about it? Yes, you can name your company whatever you want within reason. Yes, it does not have to mean anything in particular, asterisk. Companies being named in colourful ways is not particularly new, nor interesting.

I'm just surprised how the entire tech world has been fooled into thinking AGI is around the corner.

What you think "AGI" and "around the corner" means might very well not be.

> There could have been a world where just Google builds that multipler and only uses it internally.

Funny that you mention that, actually. Before OpenAI started generously... publicizing their models, Google was actually shipping their weights day-and-date with their papers. So honestly, I actually doubt that Google would do that.

> Making that multiplier publicly available can be the "Open" part.

Aw, how generous of them. They even let us pay money to generously use their "Open" resource.

> but why are we being so childish about it?

Why are you being so childish about it? "Open" means something - you can't contort OpenAI's minimalist public contributions into a defense of their "openness". You'd have better luck arguing that Apple and Microsoft support Open Source software ddevelopment.

The last significant contribution OpenAI open-sourced was GPT-2 in 2019. They are a net-negative impact on the world at-large, amassing private assets under the guise of public enrichment. If it was an option between OpenAI or nothing, I'd ask for nothing and pray for a better frontrunner. It's not the name, it's the way they behave and the apologism they garner.

By that analogy any company that uses prefix has to be open source?

OpenDoor?

Does 'Open' means anything in legal sense? It may not be in bad taste but it is your interpretation.

That's 100% the case, you can call your company OpenWhatever and keep everything closed. It's a brand, nothing else