Hacker News Reader

Comment by mattxxx | Hacker News Reader

I respect the openness here! This is the future that I want to see

Fully agree. People will trash talk it due to Musk but lets not forget the engineers who poured hours of their lives into building this and are continuing to do so.

The engineers who decided to work for him? Forgive me if I do forget about them and the hours of their lives spent on this

Engineers who joined Twitter pre-Musk days who live and work in the US on an H1-B visa can't just quit.

You can criticize Elon Musk without criticizing people who would have their lives upended if they quit or were fired.

That grace period has long passed. If you are still there at this point you have made a choice.

(Removed "complicit" because I don't like the way that sounded)

Complicit in what exactly?

I still reserve the right to trash talk Musk as I don’t believe he is committed to openness as much as he wants to spite OpenAI for telling him to pound sand.

What's the difference?

>Oh no, I only want _pure_ intentions for anything I use. Which is why I reject all for profit medicine.

It doesn't matter why he did it. What matters is that he did it.

It matters to me why people do things. I’m happy it’s open, but it doesn’t change my mind about the guy.

What an exhausting way to live.

This makes no sense to me for two reasons:

- He pointed out that his understanding was that it would be open source in some way

- The name OpenAI implies an open source endeavor. I dont know many things named Open that are in fact close sourced.

Were they not paid to do so?

I feel the same about Tesla. They make good cars that are helping to get us off of oil. They have thousand of employees.

And who among us has a CEO that isn’t problematic, even if not so much so as Musk?

Tesla is likely making good cars because the CEO is 'problematic'

"Good" cars is a real stretch.

> engineers who poured hours of their lives into building this

Not to mar these specific engineers, but that's an empty phrase that can be said about anything ever built. It doesn't somehow make the idea or implementation good.

The phrase merely means dont just overlook something because someone else who did not even labour over the end result.

Is it open if it doesn't include the training data? Genuine question - I am not familiar enough with the terms and technology to know. But my understanding is the weights is just a more or less static collection of data that has been (to paraphrase Ted Chiang) lossily compressed from the actual raw training data.

Without the training data to thoroughly evaluate what is in there, the only way you can figure it out is through experimentation - e.g. running it up in a chatbot and asking it questions.

Is this roughly correct or am I misunderstanding what you can do with the weights?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com