goertzen
Obviously there is some gray area in the training conversation but let’s not pretend that these content owner arguments are baseless just to push progress at all costs ahead.
His point stands.
Was it good ?
OpenAI clearly wants the “her” association. It’s already the favourite voice and projects many of the existing and imagined capabilities really well.
So they tried to pay for it, but it was either too expensive or blocked by SJ.
Her/teams comments read like a negotiation.
But I suspect they’ve overplayed their hand. At best they may get a settlement and OpenAI will modify the voice to make it sound less like SJ.
This is a negotiation tactic by the NYT to drive up the licensing price. Period.
The Napster/Music Industry analogy has no resemblance to this situation.
The only meaningful question that might be answered as a result of this is, what permission and access rights do crawlers have to content that is publicly and legally available.
Unlike other iconic company/founder origin stories OpenAI really felt like they hit a special team dynamic that was on the verge of some equally special.
In light of this OpenAI still feels like they will be a relevant player, but I’ll be expecting more from Sam and Greg.
I still can’t understand the “supersmart ai is so smart we can’t unplug it/patch it/restart it” before it transfers itself into every pacemaker.
Until these things are literally in bodies with some autonomy that allows them to control what happens to their brains, we will shut them off when they cause trouble.
Everyone could be producing way more than they currently are.
Everyone could be generating 1 app every 3 hours.
Everyone could be writing entire novels.
Everyone could be writing meaningful Wikipedia articles.
DIY guides should be 100x larger .
Drink as much water as you can. Breathe clean air. Walk. Get as much sleep as you can. Lift something heavy regularly.
Try it! Generate typical HN comments to this PG post [ … ]. - Include both positive and negative comments. - add replies that focus on annoying details that draw attention to the commenter - include fan boy defence of original post - point out obvious exceptions
1) It actually works 2) people are paying for it
And that is with the handicapped version (sandboxed and no wallet attached).
Once you can give these systems web access and a wallet we’ll see the full size of the wave.
Someone recently put this well: Don’t think of gpt chat as one really smart friend, instead think of it as an army of dumb pawns.
I hope these modes are prohibitively expensive to train so we can figure out a way to release them responsibly when they can be open.
Any way for people to extend it ?
2. Use whatever stack you know to build what they will pay for.
3. Rinse and repeat and add features as customers pay for them.