I think GPT-3's private beta distribution strategy widens economic inequality

[2015] Founded as a non-profit, designed to democratize and share research benefiting humanity

[2018] Releases GPT, open sourcing code and paper

[2019] Shares info on GPT-2, doesn't release out of concerns about "malicious applications"

[2019] Changes structure to a for-profit* company

[2020] Shares info on GPT-3, commercializes model via closed API

[2020] Exclusively licenses their GPT-3 model to Microsoft

They should just change their name to ClosedAI.

GPT-3 doesn't work.

GPT evolved down the wrong direction.

GPT realised just by getting entropy on what it says as low as possible it's hard for some people to see it's not actually doing anything. (It is amazing at writing low/zero entroy stuff however)

That's why is not public.

But sure.... it's because of inequality. Everyone wants in on the pyramid scheme too. I'd just give it to them. They won't see the issues anyway.

> Everyone is talking about how great GPT-3 is but why no one is talking about how inaccessible it is for people outside Silicon Valley,. It expands the tech availability gap, which further expands the income gap. "we are keeping it secret for folks we know for security" is a lie.

Does anyone know a commercial application using gpt-3? I've played around with it before and wrote about it a bunch [0,1,2] and I was both impressed but also skeptical of its usefulness in commercial applications. I don't see how this is driving the income gap. Does OpenAI perform some kind of background check to make sure you're from "Silicon Valley" before they sell to you? Their api was incredibly straight forward and barely required any tech skills to use.

> You are giving away usage availability to people you can invest or to people can invest back to you. This is pure evil and sorry but this is not ethically right for an organization brags about ethics for AI.

Are they doing this? What does this even mean? They give a key to a VC company, they are impressed and invest and something something, evil? If they are limiting usage from actual engineers that could make businesses off this, they are essentially running a ponzi scheme that will end with investors losing big as they are dumping money into something without actually generating anything valuable.

> This is not equalitarian neither meritocracy. Monopolising every single text-based content market and accumulating all the money to Silicon Valley and then what?

How are they monopolizing text-based content market? If anything, they showed its potential and others will be able to apply the same techniques to train a network very similar to gpt-3 at much lower costs.

This rant seems like its generated by gpt-3 as a word soup of tech grievances without any real substance

[0] https://medium.com/ml-everything/using-gpt-3-to-explain-joke...

[1] https://medium.com/ml-everything/demo-apps-and-building-a-bu...

[2] https://medium.com/ml-everything/the-beautiful-dark-twisted-...