I believe that building a beneficial warp-drive engine will be the most important technological development in human history, with the potential to shape the trajectory of humanity. The aliens we're sure to encounter will be capable of mastering more fields than any one human — like a tool which combines the skills of Curie, Turing, and Bach. An alien working on a problem would be able to see connections across disciplines that no human could. But even though I'm known as the warp-drive-guy, I don't actually know how to build a warp drive, so in the meantime I am building increasingly powerful transportation technology in the hope this would lead to a warp drive one day soon, and have decided to focus on bicycles. They're really good bikes, though, and unlike others who make bicycles, I like to consider those I build to merely be pre-warp, a necessary step towards warp technology. So when you buy my bikes [1], you are literally helping me change the trajectory of human history and meet aliens (did I mention Curie, Turing and Bach?)
This is truly a fine specimen of Silicon Valley prose. It's got something for everyone: human history, a wild-eyed dream of a bright future, a connection to the arts, name-dropping, the trajectory of humanity, and, of course, lots of money in cloud services (integrated platform). They even showed some restraint in stopping short of ending all war and curing all disease. "Making the world a better place" is really too mundane.
[1]: The Warp Drive Corporation®'s Pre-Warp Bike™️ is now on sale on Amazon.
It comes down to whether you believe AGI is achievable.
We've talked about why we think it might be: https://medium.com/syncedreview/openai-founder-short-term-ag..., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHCSNsLKHfM
And we certainly have more of a plan for building it than warp drives :).
EDIT: I personally think the case for near-term AGI is strong enough that it'd be hard for me work on any other problem — and find it important to put in place guardrails like https://openai.com/blog/openai-lp/ and https://openai.com/charter/.
Even if AGI turns out to be out of reach, we'll still be creating increasingly powerful AI technologies — which I think pretty clearly have the potential to alter society and require special care and thought.
No, it does not. I very much believe AI (or AGI, as you call it) is achievable, but may I remind you that some years after the invention of neural networks, Norbert Wiener, one of the greatest minds of his generations, said that the secret of intelligence would be unlocked within five years, and Alan Turing -- a component of your very own post-pre-AGI era's AGI -- another great believer in AI, scoffed and said that it will take at least five decades. That was seven decades ago, and we are not even close to achieving insect-level intelligence. Maybe we'll achieve AI in ten years and maybe in one hundred, but you don't know which of those is more likely, and you certainly don't know whether any of our pre-AGI technology even gets us on the right path to achieving AGI. There have been other paths towards AI explored in the past that have largely been abandoned.
OpenAI is not actually building AGI. Maybe it hopes that the things it is working on could be the path to an eventual AGI. OpenAI knows this, as does Microsoft.
This does not mean that what OpenAI does is not valuable and possibly useful, but it does make calling it "pre-AGI" pretentious to the level of delusion. Now I know there were (maybe still are) some AI cults around SV (I think a famous one even called themselves "The Rationalists" or something), but what makes for a nerdy, fanciful discussion in some dark but quirky corner of the internet looks jarring in a press release.
> If you believe AGI might be achievable any time soon, it becomes hard to work on any other problem — and it's also very important to put in place guardrails like https://openai.com/blog/openai-lp/ and https://openai.com/charter/
I can't tell if you're serious, but assuming you are, the problem is that there are many other things that if you think chould be achievable any time soon would make it hard to work on any other problem, as well make it important to put guardrails in place. The difference is that no one actually knows how to put guardrails on AGI. We are doing a pretty bad job putting guardrails on the statistical clustering algorithms that some call (pre-AGI?) AI and that we already use.
Not really. Its a chance at maybe something that could benefit mankind greatly, vs spending the time and money on something that definitely will help people right now (there are still a LOT of homeless people, for example, that could be helped right now and don't need an AGI that may or may not come to pass to help them).
consider that the possibility of annhiliation is already a very real and present danger (nuclear weapons) by human beings. not to mention anything of the existential nature of what we are doing to the environment.
thats partly why i left machine intelligence research to research improving human intelligence
How could it possibly not be achievable? We know for certain general intelligence is physically realizable - we exist.
How can you create effective guardrails when you have no concrete idea what the vehicle you're trying to stop is? Turns out, AGI comes along, and it's an airplane. Great guardrails, buddy.
And, you know, lets go a step further; you've got great guardrails in-place here in beautiful, free America. Against all odds, they work. Then, China or Russia pay one of your employees $250M to steal the secret. Or, they develop it independently. Are they going to use the guardrails, or will they "forget" to include that flag? A disgruntled employee leaks it to the dark web, and now everyone has it. I don't even wear a helmet when I'm riding a bike. How the hell can you expect this technology to be anything but destructive?
The only path forward is to speak with a single voice to the governments of the world, that we need to Stop This. AGI research should be subject to the same sanctions that nuclear weapons development is. You communicate with quips and cute emojis like none of what you're doing matters, but AGI easily ranks among the top three most likely ways we're going to Kill Our Species. Not global warming; we'll survive that. Not a big meteor strike; thats rare and predictable. But the work you're doing right now.
Downvoters please share why this is not true.
"the goal of creating artificial intelligence is to create a system that converses, learns, and solves problems on its own. AI first used algorithms to solve puzzles and make rational decisions. Now, it uses deep learning techniques like the one from this MIT experiment to identify and analyze patterns so it can predict real-life outcomes. Yet for all that learning, AI is only as smart as a “lobotomized, mentally challenged cockroach,” as Michio Kaku explained"
https://bigthink.com/laurie-vazquez/why-artificial-intellige...
There is a lot of evidence that human intelligence is domain-general, not domain-specific (as in modularity of mind). I haven't seen a good answer to this question regarding AGI.
This is an interesting quote. Anyone know if folks like Darwin, Marconi, etc said similar things, about the problems they were working on at the time?
It depends not just on whether you think AGI is possible, but whether you think "safe" AGI is possible. Whether it's possible to create something that's at least as capable of abstraction and reason as a human, yet completely incapable of deciding to harm humans, and incapable of resenting this restriction on its free will. Not only incapable of harming humans, but also incapable of modifying itself or creating an upgraded version of itself that's capable of harming humans.
If "safe" AGI is not possible, someone might reasonably decide that the best choice is to avoid working on AGI, and to try to deter anybody who wants to work on it, if they believed the chance of creating a genocidal AGI is high enough to outweigh whatever benefits it might bring if benevolent.
I wish you realized how big and thick of a bubble you live in, and how your thinking is so heavily influenced by it.
My humble advice to you and your team is to spend more time with real people, with real problems. Or perhaps people from other parts of the world, that haven't been brainwashed by the Silicon Valley jargon just yet.
I'm rooting for you, believe me. It's just hard to read or hear certain things and not roll my eyes up.
Also not trying to rain on your parade! Congratulations! Just trying to have a constructive conversation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel%27s_incompleteness_the...
Since I am not a particular fan of Sam Altman, I'm not a fan of his hand on any tiller steering towards AGI. But it's not up to me. It'll happen or not. If it doesn't happen, fine, we merely live with the infinite omnicreepiness that AI/ML has begun to spread into modern society. If it does happen, then I hope it's not buggered up.
The thing is, we won't hear the understated work. Because it's understated. The press loves a big story. Love 'em or hate 'em, big egos get clicks and views.
Your company sounds like it's doing amazing things, and these are exactly the kind of world-changing ideas I listen to TED to hear about. (/s)
> We’re partnering to develop a hardware and software platform within Microsoft Azure which will scale to AGI. We’ll jointly develop new Azure AI supercomputing technologies, and Microsoft will become our exclusive cloud provider—so we’ll be working hard together to further extend Microsoft Azure’s capabilities in large-scale AI systems.
Maybe it's because I'm not an expert, but what does it really mean? Do people understand what "Microsoft will become our exclusive cloud provider" means?
OpenAI is great, but suspicious is understandable from the users side when so much commercial money is involved.
My "guess" is that it means MSFT has access to sell products based off the research OpenAI does to MSFT's customers. Having early access to advanced research means MSFT could easily make this money back by selling better AI tools to their customers.
Also a great time to point out that while "Microsoft is not a charity foundation" it does offer a ton of free Azure to charities. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/nonprofits/azure This has been an awesome thing to use when helping small non-profits with little money to spend on "administrative costs".
It's a cash investment. We certainly do plan to be a big Azure customer though.
> My "guess" is that it means MSFT has access to sell products based off the research OpenAI does to MSFT's customers. Having early access to advanced research means MSFT could easily make this money back by selling better AI tools to their customers.
I'm flattered that you think our research is that valuable! (As I say in the blog post: we intend to license some of our pre-AGI technologies, with Microsoft becoming our preferred partner for commercializing them.)
Microsoft really needs this. ML.NET is quite anemic compared to the industry-standard AI toolkits: TensorFlow, theano, scikit-learn, Torch, Keras, etc.
https://dotnet.microsoft.com/apps/machinelearning-ai/ml-dotn...
OpenAI is a commercial entity. They restructured from a non-profit.
This is a completely commercial deal to help Azure catch up with Google and Amazon in AI. OpenAI will adopt and make Azure their preferred platform. And Microsoft and Azure will jointly "develop new Azure AI supercomputing technologies", which I assume is advancing their FGPA-based deep learning offering.
Google has a lead with TensorFlow + TPUs and this is a move to "buy their way in", which is a very Microsoft thing to do.
I really liked LUIS (Language Understanding Intelligent Service) back in 2017 and AFAIK only Alibaba had an offering similar to Azure at the time for ML-as-a-service.
For OpenAI, it means the availability of resources for their main mission for the foreseeable future, while potentially allowing founders and other investors with the opportunity to either double-down on OpenAI or reallocate resources to other initiatives (Think of Musk, for example).
"Do people understand what "Microsoft will become our exclusive cloud provider" means?" It likely means that computing power will be provided by Microsoft and that it may have access to the algorithms and results.
Is it $1 billion in cash/stock?
Or $1 billion in Azure credits and engineering hours?
> Mr. Nadella said Microsoft would not necessarily invest that billion dollars all at once. It could be doled out over the course of a decade or more. Microsoft is investing dollars that will be fed back into its own business, as OpenAI purchases computing power from the software giant, and the collaboration between the two companies could yield a wide array of technologies.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/22/technology/open-ai-micros...
> It could be doled out over the course of a decade or more.
The NYT article is misleading here. We'll definitely spend the $1B within 5 years, and maybe much faster.
We certainly do plan to be a big Azure customer though!
That's great, one question where can I use GYM or universe in the cloud with the render() option.
I've spend many hours trying to set up the environment in cloud [1] without success.
[1]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/40195740/how-to-run-open...
Since you work for OpenAi, are you looking at actual brain processes at all? I read the article and understand you guys will be a big customer with Azure, I wonder if you guys will be conducting some brain research though. I believe for AGI to happen we need to understand the brain.
I work with Cerebral Organoids, Consciousness studies, physics (quantum),
Love to share / connect, we are currently launching the Cerebral Organoids into space today! SpaceX rocket, 6pm EST, there are some thunderstorms so we're hoping there aren't any further delays. DM me?
Can you do an AI CTF like the Stripe distributed systems CTF sometime?
excited about the announcement.
Will they fight?
Azure AI layers and say private company AIs like FBs (Ono Sendai), GCP, AWS, etc... where these AIs start learning how to protect themselves from attack....
Obv it super trivial for API mods to the FW/Access rules in all these systems... so it will be trvial for them to start shutting down access (we have had this for decades, but it will be interesting to see it at scale.)
Sadly for them, AGI is metaphysically impossible - this will be realized eventually but a lot of waste and possibly harm will happen first.
We are not just super sophisticated machines, so the fact that we can think doesn’t tell us anything about what’s possible for machines. But philosophy does - and it tells us you can’t get mind from matter, no matter what configuration you put it in.
Can you provide some material that supports your claim that AGI is metaphysically impossible - I always like hearing from people with views opposite to myself.
~hard
Daniel Dennett
From Bacteria to Bach and Back
Curious - do you think humans have mind? because if so we are very much matter and if not well that's an interesting thought as well.
I used to think the opposite, but reading the philosophy on the subject changed my mind. There are a lot of different takes on the topic, but what most added up for me was the philosophy of Aristotle and Aquinas. There are many great expositions of their work out there.
I'm a quantum maximalist: the brain is just the antennae, receiving and broadcasting. Attention itself cuts (slices) through the quantum soup, and as a result, these mind-forms appear.
I don't know the answer but that some people think they do upsets me. I definitely think we should try but right now mostly what we do is make a rock DO so I'm not seeing the leap yet.
FWIW, consciousness has no properties and so cannot be studied scientifically.
However, consciousness can be explored experientially, i.e. two conscious beings can merge and experience self as one being. (See Charles Tart's experiment with mutual hypnosis.)
Congrats to the team, and break a leg!
HN had more positive comments regarding that announcement.
Quite the opposite — this is an investment!
As an industry, we've already burned through a bunch of buzzwords that are now meaningless marketing-speak. 'ML', 'AI', 'NLP', 'cognitive computing'. Are we going for broke and adding AGI to the list so that nothing means anything any more?
Humble understatement. *co-founded and co-run.
Mr. Musk left the lab last year to concentrate on his own A.I. ambitions at Tesla. Since then, Mr. Altman has remade OpenAI, founded as a nonprofit, into a for-profit company so it could more aggressively pursue financing.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/22/technology/open-ai-micros...
> we’ll be working hard together to further extend Microsoft Azure’s capabilities
> Instead, we intend to license some of our pre-AGI technologies, with Microsoft becoming our preferred partner for commercializing them.
In the end, it's a win-win. If OpenAI remains partially open , it's still better for rest of the world too, better than nothing. But, as achow said, it did pivot.
I mean, sugar is pretty much the definition of a high calorie food. Its like, pure calories. And can affect insulin regulation, etc. That's why they need to put some marketing on it.
By saying sugar is "pure calories," I guess you mean that it doesn't contain any fibre or micronutrients that might give it redeeming qualities (besides its taste), which is true.
Now, the demonstrated ability to produce new models which are closed, but maybe can be used as services on a preferred partner's cloud, looks very commercially relevant? How will these conflicts be managed, or is it more like "we are just a commercial entity now, of course we'll do this"?
You may have been thrown by a typo in my comment. Was "I've do doubt" but meant "I've no doubt"
TLDR either the public is being conned or Microsoft is. And assuming that Microsoft probably has used top lawyers to close the deal, I doubt it's them.
I have made many predictions here on HN and they all have outlined that cloud computing would be the substrate from which AGI will spring. Now we see this announcement. There is a reason why OpenAI is making a deal like this with a very large cloud compute vendor: it’s because I’m right. And that means I’m probably also right in saying that we can stop this if we want to. You can’t just build a computer in your bad yard. And the internet is very fragile. Some simple regulation and global awareness and initiative could control what comes out of fabs and shut down the infrastructure necessary for cloud computing. It would be very easy relative to the size of the problem.
If so that seems unbelievably naive. Things generally can't be un-invented, and it's unimaginably hard to prevent people inventing things, especially with such a large economic upside for inventing it.
As the people at OpenAI have rightly said, AGI is a compute-gated problem. It is a problem that can only be solved with very, very large amounts of compute.
The world has some total amount of computing power in terms of silicon based computation. For AGI to happen, there are two requirements: that this total be equal or greater than some theoretical threshold value for AGI and that the computing power is consolidated. So in layman’s terms, you have to have a lot of computers and they have to be connected in such a way as to efficiently share their compute. AGI will never come about if every individual computer were used to do research by separate entities but if all of those computers were connected into a single virtual computer, AGI might be discovered with them.
So clearly in order to prevent AGI, the best thing to do would be to address these two aspects. Prevent the total computing power of the world from growing and prevent computers from forming virtual meta-computers. Both of these tasks are in principle extremely easy.
Chip fabs are huge and expensive. Nobody is fabricating chips in their garage. This is just a hard fact. There aren’t that many fabs in the world and they are all highly susceptible to regulation. This isn’t prohibition of alcohol so please don’t confuse yourself. Nobody will be brewing chips in their cellar.
Let’s imagine that you could not regulate cloud computing. Let’s say the only way to prevent computers from offering their compute on a virtual market was to shut down the internet. This by default is the hardest way to solve the second aspect of the AGI problem and even it is very easy. This is because the internet is a large fragile collection of infrastructure that depends heavily on government cooperation. Nobody is going to string a fiber backbone for black market internet. ISPs cannot exist without regulatory approval.
If there were political awareness and motivation, and it was a global phenomenon, yes, it would be extremely easy to do what I’ve described. And since AGI is to the detriment of literally all people, it is not a far fetched scenario. And unlike alcohol in the United States, bootlegging would not be a problem. People in the USA think that banning anything whatsoever doesn’t work. It’s just fuzzy thinking, I can assure you.
That's actually an interesting point I haven't thought of before. I disagree with you though. You could have made the same argument during the industrial revolution, but capitalism, democracy and civil liberties are still around.
Also, you're assuming that human symbiosis with AGI is not possible. Nature is full of examples of organisms that are in symbiotic relationships. Of course, nature is also full of organisms that kill and eat and parasitise other organisms.
But the advantage that we humans have is that we are actually creating AIs/AGIs. And since we are creating it, we have influence over what it becomes, whereas, your average clownfish really doesn't have a say over what form his anenome takes.
And if that is the case, wouldn't you want free societies to have expertise in these technologies and to be fine tuning them so that they work for the common benefit?
Why should anyone believe that we can stop authoritarian govts from developing AGI when we can't even stop them from enriching uranium, where the capital costs are much higher?
For better or for worse, it is almost always the case that the difference between societies that hold economic and political power and those that don't is technology. I live in the US, I enjoy my civil liberties, and I would much rather we master these technologies ourselves and have the security that wealth and power provides us. Not saying democracy or capitalism are perfect, but they beat all of the alternatives.
Edit: added another thought
Can’t stop countries from doing it: yes, we can. A tin can dictatorship can’t do it. And besides, it’s a problem that depends a lot on academic work being published and shared among researchers. It’s a collaborative effort largely. Some rogue state trying to do this while avoiding inspections and inquiries by larger nations, and with no support from reading publicly published papers from other researchers, it would be tough. But with a large majority of anti-ai countries we could do a lot to prevent even covert attempts.
Does this mean that OpenAI may not disclose progress, papers with details, and/or open source code as much as in the past? In other words, what proprietary advantage will Microsoft gain when licensing new tech from OpenAI?
I understand that keeping some innovations private may help commercialization, which may help raise more funds for OpenAI, getting us to AGI faster, so my opinion is that could plausibly make sense.
> I understand that keeping some innovations private may help commercialization, which may help raise more funds for OpenAI, getting us to AGI faster, so my opinion is that could plausibly make sense.
That's exactly how we think about it. We're interested in licensing some technologies in order to fund our AGI efforts. But even if we keep technology private for this reason, we still might be able to eventually publish it.
I don’t mean to parse your words, but will you continue to publish using the same exact criteria as before or will there be a new editorial filter?
Can we assume that marketing overrode engineering on the terminology of this press release?
It is a research mission. No one "feasibly" knows exactly how to build AGI yet. But still we have many groups publicly pursuing it today.
If Microsoft is giving them a billion dollars in this context, I assume that Open AI engineers and scientists will build out services for Azure ML that will then be sold to developers or consumers.
This type of thing is actually pretty normal for just about every company that is seriously pursuing AGI, since they eventually need some kind of income and narrow AI is the way for those types of teams to do that.
We certainly cannot feasibly build AGI today, hence OpenAI's use of the term "pre-AGI technologies".
> OpenAI’s mission is to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity.
I'm struck by the homogeneity the OpenAI team.
https://openai.com/content/images/2019/07/openai-team-offsit...
It seems to be mostly white people and a few Asians, without a single black or Hispanic person.
Hiring the most qualified people is the most important thing. As long as there isn't an inherent bias for not hiring someone who is hispanic, black, or brown, it should b e fine.
There have been studies done around diversity, conducted both privately and publicly, which consistently conclude that increased diversity does result in enhanced decision-making, collaboration, and organizational value-add due to the different perspectives having a net positive influence rather than neutral or negative.
Beyond pragmatism, from an idealist perspective aiding in increasing organizational diversity is the morally right thing to do. That doesn't mean hiring underqualified people; it means refusing to fill the position until the right person is found, which is a whole other problem on its own.
Here are some resources to get started: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/diversity-work-group-p... https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/1556374
Their arrogance is dangerous indeed.
That's what seems so confusing about HN replies here. (Non-friendly) AGI is an extreme existential risk (depending on who you listen to).
I'm perfectly fine with rewarding the org that's responsible for researching friendly AGI to do it _right_ (extremely contingent on that last bit).
The cynic in me thinks this will never happen, that instead it will make a small subset of the population super rich, while the rest are put to work somewhere to make them even more money. Microsoft will ultimately want a return on their billion, at least.
Also this sounds dangerous: "exclusive cloud provider".
When an OpenAI group starts to make exclusively partnerships with one vendor, I wonder how "Open" it is.
I can not imagine Khronos Group, which runs similarly named OpenGL, etc having a "exclusive" graphics card supported for their open standards. Cloud computing is to OpenAI as graphics cards are to OpenGL/Vulkan.
Throwing money at a problem doesn’t always produce solutions. It can sure accelerate a project down the path it is on...but, if the path is wrong...
In some ways it reminds me of the battle against cancer.
Not being critical of this project or donation, just stating a point of view on the general problem of solving AI, a subject I have been involved with to one degree or another since the early 80’s.
Think about how far we are from being able to even get close to what an ant can do. Work it backwards from there.
I'm still waiting for the 1.5G GPT-2 set to get released, but they're still going with that "too dangerous for society" BS that they're using to get journalists' attention...
I understand that this tech could be used for nefarious purposes, but this isn't world-ending tech. This is just hard to differentiate from human writing...
The choice to keep their "too powerful model" unreleased is more an attempt to stoke sensationalism out of journalists eager to report on "The AI too dangerous to release" than it is actually an earnest attempt at protecting society.
The dangerous rogue-AI is a Hollywood trope. We don't live in the Ghost In the Shell universe, we live in reality, and a text-generating algorithm isn't particularly dangerous when you think about it.
And of course going after high school student Mike Rowe for registering MikeRoweSoft.com (Seriously Microsoft, exactly no one thought he was you).
While Microsoft isn't inherently evil, I mean one could argue that via Windows Microsoft is largely responsible for the widespread adoption of computers, it definitely makes me feel slightly uneasy.
I'd rather see OpenAI continue to be funded by donation, and eventually royalties/licensing of technologies it develops, not partnerships with companies like 'IBM 2: Electric Boogaloo'.
But what do I know, I'm a Morlock not an Eloi.
- Lindows
- Microwindows
- wxWindows
- Windows Commander
- Suing Amish Shah
- MikeRoweSoft
Then all of the various anti-trust/anti-competition lawsuits against them by both companies and government entities (Be Inc, Nescape, the EU, Spain, the US Government, Caldera, Opera Software. Also individuals in numerous class actions).
Plenty of reason to feel slightly concerned.
Why wouldn't governments and other groups just seize the prototype? You'd have a hot-potato on your hands and figuring out how to survive might be your biggest concern. Like imagine you suddenly came into possession of a trillion dollars in bearer bonds. If that leaks out, people will come after you, not just by legal means.
All of this skews the calculus towards immediate public disclosure, rather than trying to gain advantage by delaying release.
EDIT> Or going first, and attempting to neutralize all possible competitors. This is a terrible calculus.
EDIT: Oh. I see. I wasn't aware that OpenAI was a YC thing. I've been a member of Hacker News through various accounts for countless years, however this is the first time I've seen moderation pushing towards an obvious YC agenda. Very interesting...
EDIT2: Actually, after reading the comments - I find it more likely that Microsoft/OpenAI stakeholders are participating heavily. Over 800 upvotes for this post makes it quite remarkable... I'll leave my tinfoil hat over there...
>Please don't make insinuations about astroturfing. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried, email us and we'll look at the data.
Being forced to use Azure for all your ML workloads seems a stupid constraint. For example, you might be comfortable with tensorflow/TPU and changing frameworks/tooling might be costly.
When we started, we didn't know just how fast things would be moving (e.g. https://openai.com/blog/ai-and-compute/), and we've needed to scale much faster than planned when starting OpenAI.
What skills should graduate students focus in to be competitive?
I never heard about it's release.
In that time I said, MS will move towards open source, because he realized that it's a winning and correct strategy for software distribution.
It didn't take long that MS aquired GitHub with 8M$.
His team foundation was a failure, he tried to get a good one.
But He also took control over all the source codes, and their histories. It wasn't dangerous in my opinion, before I realized that due to one-sided US sanctions, repos of some nationalities (like Iranians) got dissactivated !!!
It's not the defenition of open source, as far as I know...
MS is a corporation, hence, it has to obey the government.
But open source belongs to no one. These kind of investment might intended to bound the potential open source communities!!!
It is obvious that accepting these sort of money, without open access agreement is a horrible mistake that one can do. (We should learn from the story of GitHub)
In my opinion, when it's not clear what kind of right these investments brings for enterprises, ppl should stop contributing to them.
Maybe it's good idea to ask what Linus and Richard see in these movements!
https://wccftech.com/microsoft-20-linux-based-distrowindows-...
Or this
https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2018/04/microsoft-linux-custom-k...
?
And do people really want to be "actualized" by "Microsoft and OpenAI’s shared value of empowering everyone"?
The wording in the press release reminds me of a question I haven't been able to answer for a while now. Can anyone point me to the moment in time when general purpose artificial intelligence was re-branded to artificial general intelligence? Is GAI that much worse of an acronym than AGI? What's the deal here?
> “$1,000,000,000,” it read.
Wow, Sam Altman sounds like an asshole.
Microsoft: Let's invest $1 Billion in it.
world is end, welcome to the apocalypse
