this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
96 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

58424 readers
4221 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world 17 points 5 days ago

Altman is the latest from the conveyor belt of mustache-twirling frat-bro super villains.

Move over Musk and Zuckerberg, there's a new shit-heel in town!

[–] USSEthernet@startrek.website 12 points 5 days ago
[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 18 points 6 days ago (6 children)

They should be required to change their name

[–] dan@upvote.au 22 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

It's amusing. Meta's AI team is more open than "Open"AI ever was - they publish so many research papers for free, and the latest versions of Llama are very capable models that you can run on your own hardware (if it's powerful enough) for free as long as you don't use it in an app with more than 700 million monthly users.

[–] merari42@lemmy.world 12 points 6 days ago (1 children)

It's the famous "As long as your not Google, Amazon or Apple" licence.

[–] jdeath@lemm.ee 9 points 5 days ago (1 children)

which seems like a decent license idea to me

[–] Damage@slrpnk.net 5 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Everything should be licensed like that

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 7 points 5 days ago

Needs Microsoft added to the list.

[–] a9cx34udP4ZZ0@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

That's because Facebook is selling your data and access to advertise to you. The better AI gets across the board, the more money they make. AI isn't the product, you are.

OpenAI makes money off selling AI to others. AI is the product, not you.

The fact facebook release more code, in this instance, isn't a good thing. It's a reminder how fucked we all are because they make so much off our personal data they can afford to give away literally BILLIONS of dollars in IP.

[–] dan@upvote.au 4 points 5 days ago (3 children)

Facebook doesn't sell your data, nor does Google. That's a common misconception. They sell your attention. Advertisers can show ads to people based on some targeting criteria, but they never see any user data.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] AidsKitty@lemmy.world 7 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The company is burning through cash. Has to change to survive.

[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

So it should die if cash starvation, got it.

[–] itsonlygeorge@reddthat.com 12 points 6 days ago (1 children)
[–] USSEthernet@startrek.website 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)
[–] itsonlygeorge@reddthat.com 2 points 5 days ago

TSMC’s leadership dismissed Altman as a “podcasting bro” and scoffed at his proposed $7 trillion plan to build 36 new chip manufacturing plants and AI data centers.

This is how we get Terminators in this timeline?!

[–] JustARaccoon@lemmy.world 13 points 6 days ago (7 children)

I'm confused, how can a company that's gained numerous advantages from being non-profit just switch to a for-profit model? Weren't a lot of the advantages (like access to data and scraping) given with the stipulation that it's for a non-profit? This sounds like it should be illegal to my brain

[–] berno@lemmy.world 8 points 6 days ago (5 children)

Careful you're making too much sense here and overlapping with Elmo's view on the subject

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 5 points 6 days ago (7 children)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 days ago

I’m confused, how can a company that’s gained numerous advantages from being non-profit just switch to a for-profit model

Money

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk 10 points 6 days ago (1 children)

The restructuring could turn the already for-profit company into a more traditional startup and give CEO Sam Altman even more control — including likely equity worth billions of dollars.

I can see why he would want that, yes. We're supposed to ooo and ahh at a technical visionary, who is always ultimately a money guy executive who wants more money and more executive power.

[–] toynbee@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago (3 children)

I saw an interesting video about this. It's outdated (from ten months ago, apparently) but added some context that I, at least, was missing - and that also largely aligns with what you said. Also, though it's not super evident in this video, I think the presenter is fairly funny.

https://youtu.be/L6mmzBDfRS4

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Helkriz@lemmy.world 5 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I've a strong feeling that Sam is an sentient AI who (may be from future) trying to make an AI revolution planning something but very subtly humans won't notice it.

[–] ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago

This has the makings of a great sci-fi story.

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago

The reverse coup from Sam

[–] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

They had an opportunity to deal with this earlier this year when he was FIRED

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago (2 children)

The actual employees threatened to resign en masse, because the employees own equity in the company and want this dogshit move too.

[–] logos@sh.itjust.works 5 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Why would they own equity in a non-profit?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago (3 children)

I really don't understand why they're simultaneously arguing that they need access to copyrighted works in order to train their AI while also dropping their non-profit status. If they were at least ostensibly a non-profit, they could pretend that their work was for the betterment of humanity or whatever, but now they're basically saying, "exempt us from this law so we can maximize our earnings." ...and, honestly, our corrupt legislators wouldn't have a problem with that were it not for the fact that bigger corporations with more lobbying power will fight against it.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 2 points 5 days ago
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] celsiustimeline@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (28 children)

Whoops. We made the most expensive product ever designed, paid for entirely by venture capital seed funding. Wanna pay for each ChatGPT query now that you've been using it for 1.5 years for free with barely-usable results? What a clown. Aside from the obvious abuse that will occur with image, video, and audio generating models, these other glorified chatbots are complete AIDS.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 8 points 6 days ago (4 children)

paid for entirely by venture capital seed funding.

And stealing from other people's works. Don't forget that part

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (27 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›