this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
9 points (84.6% liked)

Technology

34891 readers
841 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.

Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.

Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
MinutePhrase@lemmy.ml
9
Why OpenAI Is at War With an Obscure Idea Man (www.bloomberg.com)
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by yogthos@lemmy.ml to c/technology@lemmy.ml
8 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

https://archive.ph/n2Jwi

top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] theshatterstone54@feddit.uk 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I'm actually on this man's side.

The idea-stealing he talks about is not unheard of, and multiple people or groups coming up with similar ideas at the same time by looking at market trends is actually quite common.

If you also look at the fact that he has evidence for pretty much all his claims,

AND

He has gotten the domain and has evidence for the ideas and ownership of "Open AI" before Altman's "OpenAI" was formed

AND

He says a lot of his ideas never came to fruition because he couldn't get funding but the one thing he didn't need crazy funding for, investing in Bitcoin when it was $10 per coin, is something he ends up doing and leaves him well-off.

All that to me is enough evidence that this man is one hell of an unlucky individual.

And as such, I believe him.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago

same

[–] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

i'm not. just because he's an underdog here means that you're gonna ignore all the harms of generative ai up to this day? it's like complaining that big oil stole the idea of adding tetraethyllead to gasoline from you and you got no profits from that as a result

[–] theshatterstone54@feddit.uk 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Not necessarily. A lot of the harms disappear when everything goes open, which is what this person stands for, and what OpenAI was supposed to stand for.

Open LLM + Open Training Data = Open AI

Copyright and IP concerns disappear with an open dataset.

Open models are inherently more trustworthy because of an obvious reduction in vendor lock-in.

[–] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Copyright and IP concerns disappear with an open dataset.

i don't think i'd agree with that, doesn't matter if dataset goes open if content went there without consideration for authors

also even things like thispersondoesnotexist were used to mass-create fake identities and such

[–] theshatterstone54@feddit.uk 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah, but something like that would be super easy to find and fix without going through lawsuits. And I'd argue the dataset creators would be far less likely to add copyrighted material to the training data when it's all out in the open and they can be immediately made to remove and retrain the AI without that data.

[–] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 4 weeks ago

the problem with that is that training can't be done "immediately" it takes tons of compute

[–] utopiah@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago

What this show is a total lack of originality.

AI is not new. Open-source is not new. Putting two well known concepts together wasn't new either because... AI has historically been open. A lot of the cutting edge research is done in public laboratories, with public funding, and is published in journals (sadly often behind paywall but still).

So the name and the concept are both unoriginal.

A lot of the popularity gained from OpenAI by using a chatbot is not new either. Relying on always larger dataset and benefiting from Moore's law is not new either.

So I'm not standing on any side, neither this person nor the corporation.

I find that claiming to be "owning" common ideas is destructive for most.