[jiggawatts]

The cultures at the various leading AI research organisations are wildly divergent.

Google is full of people that for a want of a better word are simply arrogant. They think that the purpose of AI is for them to show off their skills and... that's it. At best they'd use it internally for selling you more ads, they don't seem to think other people are worthy of using the output of their efforts in any shape, way, or form.

OpenAI is full of boyscouts that think that AI should be carefully censored so that it represents black, brown, asian, and white people equally. They deliberately skew the training data to enshrine wokeness into the product, while also trying to prevent anyone using their models to generate anything vaguely like porn. Basically, they're digital mormons. No fun.

Stability AI / Stable Diffusion is a bunch of people that had money thrown at them with no guard rails. Anything goes. Download our models and have fun! Make porn if you want to. Whatever.

To nobody's surprise, only the latter is of any interest or use to the general public.

The sad part is that Google had the most resources to spend on training their models, and it's the least accessible.

It's like Tony Stark inventing cold fusion energy and then using only to power his suit instead of... you know... changing the world for the better.

[alphabetting]

Google is full of people that for a want of a better word are simply arrogant. They think that the purpose of AI is for them to show off their skills and... that's it. At best they'd use it internally for selling you more ads, they don't seem to think other people are worthy of using the output of their efforts in any shape, way, or form.

I don't think the papers they put out are to "show off." It's for advancing the entire field. Imagine if they had kept the Transformer paper in house which everyone uses and is basically the standard in AI now. AI wouldn't be anywhere close to where it is today. Also, I think it's a little ridiculous to think Google would spend $100B over the past 10 years on AI research and not think this stuff will be seen in important products.

[jw1224]

I can understand why OpenAI were initially hesitant to be true to their name — it made sense whilst these models were in their infancy.

But as we enter 2023, OpenAI no longer require approval before using GPT3, and DALLE2 is publicly accessible.

Google has yet to release anything publicly… In light of Midjourney’s comments, it’s hard not to be a little suspicious.

[MrMan]

In a world of papers with code, open Ai is not open

[elefanten]

What were the Midjourney comments?

Edit: Nm, missed it in the top level reply

[astrange]

Language models don’t work unless you “censor” them like OpenAI does with reinforcement learning. You get the opposite result - it starts writing erotica as soon as it sees a woman’s name.

[Jarwain]

I mean you say that, but I keep getting impressed responses to chatGPT, hearing stories of people integrating it into their work flow, etc

[MrMan]

The op is saying, correctly, that open Ai is bad because they think brown black and Asian people are as good as him. Anything that makes him feel lesser is woke and bad.

[countvonbalzac]

Not being horribly racist is woke now?

[MrMan]

Yes - that is literally why “woke” is a pejorative term.

[somrand0]

what I'm interested in are the military-grade models they already have deployed against the russian and against the chinese. we're witnessing a war but cannot acknowledge it publicly.

[slaucon]

what do you mean by this? how are they being deployed? disinformation campaigns or more than that?

[somrand0]

imagine a platform that shadowbans people, but then has them interacting with a chatGPT based bot; so they keep busy and don't notice their shadowbans any time soon.

if I can have this idea, so can others, and it's not even a difficult idea to have right now.. somebody should be testing this on reddit (or fb); or in a 'foreign country' if you feel queasy about the ethics of this.