[DJHenk]

> Ironic.

Not at all. When you're the underdog, it makes perfect sense to be open because you can profit from the work of the community and gain market share. Only after establishing some kind of dominance or monopoly it makes sense (profit wise) to switch to closed technology.

OpenAI was open, but is now the leader and closed up. Meta and Google need to play catch up, so they are open.

[dkjaudyeqooe]

> Not at all. When you're the underdog, it makes perfect sense to be open because you can profit from the work of the community and gain market share. Only after establishing some kind of dominance or monopoly it makes sense (profit wise) to switch to closed technology.

That is purely the language of commerce. OpenAI was supposed to be a public benefit organisation, but it acts like a garden variety evil corp.

Even garden variety evil corps spend decades benefitting society with good products and services before they become big and greedy, but OpenAI skipped all that and just cut to the chase. It saw an opening with the insane hype around ChatGPT and just grabbed all it could as fast as it could.

I have a special contempt for OpenAI on that basis.

[behnamoh]

This. MistralAI is also underdog and released Mitral 7b and Mixtral 8x7b, but as soon as they got traction, they closed their models (e.g., Mistral Medium).

[ekianjo]

> OpenAI was open

When is the last time they released something in the open?

[vertis]

I think that's the point, they released GPT2 openly, but as soon as they had something commercially viable they became ClosedAI.