In life, it's up to you whether to be a critic/hater, a creator, or someone who simply goes with the flow. You can lead, follow, or get out of the way. Isn't there a saying like that, perhaps from BMW or something along those lines?
Here's the real talk: there's absolutely no way, without a hefty pile of cash, that AI will be an open-to-all venture, especially when we talk about open-source software (OSS). Let's face it, the kind of AI that changes the game just isn't going to be freely available.
I'm all in for open source, to the point of being 100000% behind it. I code and share it openly, hoping to both help others and learn in the process. Open source is something I genuinely love.
Yet, let's be real, the notion that the most advanced and impactful AI could be open source is a bit of a stretch. The implications are huge, from market chaos to the risk of hackers taking over government systems. The potential for real harm and damage is too significant to ignore.
This brings us to the reality that many companies might be selling us a bit of a story. They're on the outside looking in, trailing behind in second, third, or even further back, and frankly, there's not much they can do about it.
Their only move? Release less advanced models under the guise of being "open source," claiming this shows they're on the right side of humanity. It feels a bit like a desperate plea for relevance.
Take Elon Musk, for instance. His involvement has turned into something of a spectacle. Being the latest to jump into the fray with a "if you can't beat 'em, discredit 'em" attitude, it's hard to take seriously anymore.
Musk, more than anyone, seems to embody spite. Accusations fly about him stealing GPT to create GROK, and now he's distributing it for free. What's the world to do with that?
It feels almost disingenuous to claim you're releasing something as free just because you're not in the lead. Would these offerings be free if the roles were reversed? Consider Musk's behavior and communications—would he be open-sourcing anything if he were in the lead? Doubtful. He wanted OAI for himself, and when that didn't pan out, he resorted to lawsuits, bad-mouthing, and what some might call theft, all under the guise of supporting open source.
But let's cut to the chase: when your operation needs a billion dollars, you're not just "open source" anymore; you're in business.
[link] [comments]