It potentially cost the whole field in terms of innovation. For OpenAI specifically, they now need to scramble to come up with a differentiated business model that makes sense in the new landscape and can justify their valuation. OpenAI’s valuation is based on being the dominant AI company.
I think you misread my comment if you think my feelings are somehow hurt here.
> It potentially cost the whole field in terms of innovation
I don't see how, and you're not explaining it. If the models had been public this whole time, then... they would be protected against people publishing derivative models?
> I think you misread my comment if you think my feelings are somehow hurt here.
Not you, but most HNers got emotionally attached to their promise of openness, like they were owed some personal stake in the matter.
> I don't see how, and you're not explaining it. If the models had been public this whole time, then... they would be protected against people publishing derivative models?
Are you suggesting that if OpenAI published their models, they would still want to prevent derivative models? You take the "I wish OpenAI was actually open" and add your own restriction?
Or do you mean that them publishing their models and research openly would not have increased innovation? Because that's quite a claim, and you're the one who has to explain your thinking.
I am not in the field, but my understanding is that ever since the PaLM paper, research has mostly been kept from the public. OpenAI's money making has been a catalyst for that right? Would love some more insight.
