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.
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.
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.
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.
LLaMA