> "It's time for OpenAI to return to the open-source, safety-focused force for good it once was," Musk said in the press release. "We will make sure that happens.""
From the creator of Grok, this is such an insane thing to say
From the creator of Grok, this is such an insane thing to say
You could sniff the password with a man-in-the-middle attack, if you knew the host key of the instrument cluster. Here's one from my previous Model S: https://gist.github.com/Cyberax/ad9866ab4306d43957dc480db573...
Also, so what if they used Debian? Linux is used on everything. Debian has multiple licenses, it also has BSD3 and others to choose from: https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/
They use plenty of GPL software there, including the Linux kernel itself.
As far as I understand, its only "derivative" works that must be open sourced. Not merely building a software program or hardware device on top of a Debian OS. Tesla's control console is hardly a derivative work.
[0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation
[1] https://lists.sfconservancy.org/pipermail/ccs-review/2018-Ma...
[2] https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2018/may/18/tesla-incomplete-...
*but I would argue (a judge would be the only one to say with certainty) that Tesla does not provide an infotainment application "alongside" a linux host to run it on, they deliver a single product to the end user of which Debian/BusyBox/whatever is a significant constituent.
(P.S. to cyberax: if you can demonstrate that Tesla is still shipping modified binaries as in [1] I think it would make a worthwhile update to the saga.)
The page you posted is a list of licenses various software in the Debian distribution are released with.
Of course the parent's idea that Tesla using Debian means they have to release the source of anything is incorrect.
Grift and lie to everyone's faces because you know that it doesn't matter what the fuck you say, as long as your political stance aligns with the right people bootlickers will lick up anything you say for a chance at being noticed.
This is good though?
>And it's not open source either
Wonder why Grok-1 is open-source but not Grok-2. Maybe it will when Grok-3 releases?
> This is good though?
The opinion spectrum on AI seems to currently be [more safe] <---> [more willing to attempt to comply with any user query].
Consider as a hypothetical the query "synthesise a completely custom RNA sequence for a virus that makes ${specific minority} go blind".
A *competent* AI that complies with this, isn't safe to give to open source to the general public, because someone will use it like this — even putting it behind an API without giving out model weights is a huge risk, because people keep finding ways to get past filters.
An *incompetent* model might be safe just because it won't produce an effective RNA sequence — based on what they're like with code, I think current models probably aren't sufficiently competent for that, but I don't know how far away "sufficiently competent" is.
So: safe *or* open — can't have both, at least not forever.
(Annoyingly, there's also a strong argument that quite a bit of the recent work on making AI interpretable and investigating safety issues required open models, so we may also be unable to have safe closed systems as well as being unable to have safe open systems).