Hacker News Reader

Sorry I was using scientific in a broader sense - probably should have used "academic" instead -

it's deeply problematic because they are building on open, public results yet they don't provide information on how people may build on it - its exploitative and exclusionary - at least they are consistent

View on HN

I find this argument to be extremely ridiculous. They solved some math problems and published the results for free. No one asked them to do it, they weren't paid, and they don't owe anyone anything. Who exactly is exploited and excluded? The entire notion of open public information is that you can do anything you want with it, including build private systems. Is a baker "exploitative and exclusionary" for reading a recipe in a book and then turning around and selling that bread to customers, without sharing the recipe with the customers?

The anti-AI arguments keep morphing, as many could have probably predicted. Starting with "AI can't do anything" to "AI can't do anything useful" to ... "AI breakthroughs are proprietary!#@!!!".

I've seen more goalposts move in the last 3 years than maybe in my whole (lengthy) career up to that point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com