Wow, he's right... For all the wrong reasons, but he's right for a change
this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2024
240 points (97.2% liked)
News
23444 readers
4282 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Damn broken clocks being right sometimes on accident.
All LLMs should be FOSS. They are created from everyone's data, and should therefore be free for everyone.
No. They shouldn’t exist
You're not wrong, but the genie is out of the bottle. VC thinks it's profitable and it can be done on a home computer so it's here to stay.
Buckle up buckaroo.
load more comments
(9 replies)
Screw AI, Corporations shouldn't exist
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Why? Is musk developing a competing AI.
He was initially invested in OpenAI, but then there was a dispute over the strategies and Musk left OpenAI. Musk now has the company xAI and is developing Grok.
Ah, so he couldn’t buy a “founder” title. So he made his own.
Also he refers to Tesla as an AI company now that they have a team working on self-driving cars.
Of course he is. Fed with all that sweet sweet data from Xitter. So it will be a rascist Frankensteinian nightmare.
"Sure, I'll display a recipe for vanilla pudding! First, eliminate all black people. Woke mobs must be removed for proper cohesion. Whisk until properly White™ and deny Palestine the right to exist. Vanilla pudding is a wonderful dessert to serve your fellow patriots as you eliminate the left virus from America™©®."
Pretty sure their self driving tech is via machine learning.
They might use machine learning for some aspects, but it's primarily neural nets which are a different thing. Perception based neural nets are also very different than LLMs
Neural nets are a model used in machine learning.
How fitting that googles AI response failed me confirming they were different, without saying it's a subset of machine learning.
How did you guess?
I also would not like to see OpenAI shift to fully for-profit but Msuk's allegations lack merit.
"I bought this country. I can do whatever I want!"
Now who asks a court to turn Musk's companies into non-profits to prevent conflicts of interest with him seemingly getting a government position?
Surely the incoming Musk administration won't do anything to influence the court's decision.
If the world actually made sense, the phrase "Elon Musk asks court to" would possess the exact same significance (or lack thereof) as the phrase "Joe from down the street asks court to."
Not in this case, Elon does have some standing here. He was (is?) A significant investor in openai and he made those investments when the company was claiming it's goal was to advance safe ai, not make money, so this transition to for profit is sort of a bait and switch.
That combined with his interest in a competing platform make it so Elon should at least be heard. I hate Elon as much as anyone on here but in this case I think he's in the right.
The titles should be “Elon Musk files an injunction…”
I don't generally agree with billionaires making government decisions (not that they didn't already), but i agree with Elon on this one. Nothing good will come from monetizing OpenAI.
Idk if you agree as much as happen to have somewhat aligned interests for completely unrelated reasons.
Yeah, poor word choice on my part. He wants to develop his own AI, and he sees this as a threat to that. I see monetization of AI as a scourge on society.
Someone get rid of this man.
By any means necessary
Please. I'll donate to that go-fund-me
But no one will 😩
Will no one rid us of this meddlesome priest?
Thank you, Henry.
Seems Musk is already working hard on eliminating any competition he might have. Wants to get rid of NASA too, I mean, there are companies that can do this, y'know? Let me think, what company could take over from NASA... Mmmm... 🤔
No company can take over Nasa. Nasa is a research organisation. It actually pushes the envelope and does things that have no apparent objective ROI.. like going to Mars and driving around a rover. Only a government funded organisation can do that.
Of course we can just pour endless buckets of money into for-profits.. but then who decides what is done with the money... Nasa actually has the organization for this.. with scientists.. clear grant processes etc. etc.
Oh of course no company can, and especially SpaceX can't. SpaceX is a lot of fluff, and I'm sure some get great Engineers work there, but if you look at what they have done so far it's laughably bad. It took well over 3 billion from the US government to put people on Mars and so far it managed to blow up a banana over the Indian ocean... oh, and to needlessly blow up a launch pad.
Doesn't matter though, Elon Musk who keeps yelling that the government is wasting too much money (but not on his company of course!!) now is in the position to make the US tax payer really bad through the nose and make sure the money lands in his pocket.
He's still working hard on getting the 56 billion dollar for Tesla because of course... But he can get so much more for his mars scam!
SpaceX exists only because of NASA.
The Merlin engine is based on an engine developed by NASA, they even started by buying the exact same turbopumps directly from NASA's subcontractor
The initial funding from Musk ($100 million) allowed SpaceX to develop the Falcon 1, in 2008 they only reached orbit on its 4th attempt. At this point they had no money left, a small rocket with a terrible track record and no customers for it.
3 months later NASA awarded a $1.6 billion contract to SpaceX for the ISS resupply ! This is what allowed then to continue and develop the Falcon 9.
You're leaving off the part that NASA was wanting to incentivize private space companies. They opened up a competition to win some contracts and SpaceX wanted them. A requirement was reaching orbit. They succeeded, so they won some contracts.
It's not like NASA just out of the blue decided to save SpaceX after Musk used the last of his money. They made an open offer, SpaceX fought for and won what they got. If that 4th rocket had failed, they'd have been toast, but it didn't.
Edit: I guess I should add that SpaceX protested NASA when they did a sole source contract and NASA quickly revoked the contract, which led to NASA creating the program they then competed in. And if you think this is a bad thing its generally not. Sole source contracts aren't competitive and will usually cost the government more. Ultimately that company they chose went bankrupt.
but can both of them implode?
I mean give OpenAi refused to sell to Musk, and Musk has his own competing product (Gronk) - I think he wants just one of them to implode. Might be able to accomplish that with four years in office, definitely will if this "team" manages to stay around longer.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The one time I hope Elon’s frivolous lawsuits pan out.
That's because he wants to control this market and his xAI is behind.
LLM should be FOSS.
I agree but moving open AI further into the for-profit sector doesn’t seem to help with that goal.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›