> The Open in openAI means that everyone should benefit from the fruits of AI after its built, but it's totally OK to not share the science...
Based on this line of reasoning, ANY company that builds any given technology and intends to share (sell) it to the world, but not divulge how it was done, can call itself OpenWhatever.
They are clearly saying that the word “Open” in their name means nothing.
Any company could do that. If it would make sense for them to do that would depend on the market they were entering though. At the time OpenAI came about companies weren't sharing (selling) AI to the world. Doing so was a point of differentiation. There's Google over there hoarding all of their AI for themselves. Here's us over here providing APIs and free chat interfaces to the general public.
So sure the name means nothing now in a market shaped by OpenAI, where everyone offers APIs and has chat interfaces. It doesn't mean it meant nothing when they picked it or that they abandoned the meaning. The landscape just changed.
AI/AGI is a multiplier. There could have been a world where just Google builds that multipler and only uses it internally. Making that multiplier publicly available can be the "Open" part.
I understand that this particular audience is very sensitive about the term, but why are we being so childish about it? Yes, you can name your company whatever you want within reason. Yes, it does not have to mean anything in particular, asterisk. Companies being named in colourful ways is not particularly new, nor interesting.
> There could have been a world where just Google builds that multipler and only uses it internally.
Funny that you mention that, actually. Before OpenAI started generously... publicizing their models, Google was actually shipping their weights day-and-date with their papers. So honestly, I actually doubt that Google would do that.
> Making that multiplier publicly available can be the "Open" part.
Aw, how generous of them. They even let us pay money to generously use their "Open" resource.
> but why are we being so childish about it?
Why are you being so childish about it? "Open" means something - you can't contort OpenAI's minimalist public contributions into a defense of their "openness". You'd have better luck arguing that Apple and Microsoft support Open Source software ddevelopment.
The last significant contribution OpenAI open-sourced was GPT-2 in 2019. They are a net-negative impact on the world at-large, amassing private assets under the guise of public enrichment. If it was an option between OpenAI or nothing, I'd ask for nothing and pray for a better frontrunner. It's not the name, it's the way they behave and the apologism they garner.
Based on this line of reasoning, ANY company that builds any given technology and intends to share (sell) it to the world, but not divulge how it was done, can call itself OpenWhatever.
They are clearly saying that the word “Open” in their name means nothing.