They are so far from open at this point.
In Germany at least, you're not allowed to have a misleading name for your company
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.
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.
Open could now mean available to use for free.
These words are not synonymous with each other: “open” is not inherently free, “free” is not inherently open, and “free” is not inherently “Free”.
They each capture notions that are often orthogonal, occasionally related, and almost always generate tedious debates about freedom vs. free goods, open-ness vs. open-source, etc.
But setting all of that aside, Microsoft never claimed (until recent shifts towards embracing FOSS) to be building an open and non-profit foundation.
The criticisms of OpenAI are reasonable to an extent, not because they are not open, but because they made claims about openness that are looking less and less likely to be true over time.
I and I suspect many others would not be averse to this
Except they already drew that line long ago, when they started out open-sourcing their papers, models and code.
As soon as they took VC capital, it is hardly 'Open' is it? Especially when they are now giving excuses for closing off their research?:
From the technical paper [0]
>> Given both the competitive landscape and the safety implications of large-scale models like GPT-4, this report contains no further details about the architecture (including model size), hardware, training compute, dataset construction, training method, or similar.
At this point, they are no better than DeepMind.
With every model they get more closed. This is the first time they are so closed that they don't even tell you the parameter count.