cedarseagull

Not OP, but IMO the Chinese are waging economic warfare by "commodifying the competition". US VC's and equity are massively invested in AI being very very profitable and as soon as it's not that becomes garbage debt on a balance sheet, and a lot of it. When money is invested it's expected to make a return. When a few people make bad investments they lose their bag, when many many people all make the same bad investment, you get a nasty recession. When the US goes into recession China is more emboldened to pursue their agenda because policy makers are distracted by shoring up support at home and not as interested in expanding their power abroad.

Why are all the videos of the robots doing combat stuff? I don't need combat stuff. All I need the robot to do is fold the laundry and mop every now and then. Less combat, please!

It seems like if it was the Annie Altman accusations, they could have just paid her off. If they wanted him around and he was a creep, there are ways to make this stuff go away. AFAIK a lot of the sister's accusations were accompanied by being excluded from the father's will. Not saying she made it up, but it seems like if those grievances are bundled, there's a easy way to make that problem go away.

I agree with this assessment. I would speculate he did something in the early days to gain access to a bunch of training data under the guise of research ("...after all, we're OPENai") and used that data to fine-tune GPT-3 into chatGPT. Then once the weights were sufficiently good enough, deleted all the data and planned on using the chat interactions w/ the model itself for further refinement. Obviously, just total speculation, but the Cover Your Ass verbage of the board makes me think he did something to put the org in deep shit, legally. OpenAI suspended subscriptions last week and that's usually not something a company does, even if the service is degraded. Warn users, yes, but don't take any more money when you're hemorrhaging cash is off. I won't be surprised if it's a flagrant GDPR violation that carries very heavy fines.

I think it's a defense against anti-trust attacks. Bell Labs did a TON of this in 60's and 70's when they owned most of the phone lines, service contracts, AND TELEPHONES THEMSELVES in the USA.

I believe companies open source their research efforts as a thing to point to when regulators come so they can say "look at all the good our cash-faucet monopoly provides the economy!!"