Archived version, for posterity.
Take note Bluesky fans: Your “benevolent” controlling nonprofit can quickly become a for-profit if enough cash is thrown at the governing board…
To address the blue sky comment. Yeah sure it’s possible but at the same time so what, it’s a protocol like activity pub. Obviously you don’t have a problem with that.
So if blue sky goes tits up then everyone can just go to some other plant form without having to lose all their content. So it’s fine.
Meanwhile openAI despite the name was never open source. Not that I really know what that would even look like for an AI.
I don’t think anyone else runs a BlueSky server right now except for BlueSky. At last not one with any substantial amount of users. Imo this makes BlueSky a lot less resilient compared to Lemmy or other federated social media.
Take note Bluesky fans: Your “benevolent” controlling nonprofit can quickly become a for-profit if enough cash is thrown at the governing board…
Mozilla and Firefox too…
Except Mozilla has declining revenues.
Possibly even less money in the future if the Google antitrust suit bars them from paying Mozilla to place their search engine first.
I mean, that can be even worse IMO, desperation can be just as bad as greed, even if the motives are very different
Good point.
Yikes, that’s a scary thought
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Public_License
Mozilla can’t stop people from modifying or distributing firefox without changing its license.
If they do change the license, then all the versions up to that point will still be fair game for modification and redistribution.
This is part of why copyleft is so important. Relying on proprietary software means there’s nothing we can do if the “owner” decides to change course.
Reaching A.G.I. could also reshape OpenAI’s business. When that declaration is made, Microsoft loses its rights to use OpenAI’s technology, according to the investment contract it signed with OpenAI. If OpenAI severs its ties to Microsoft, it could consider partnerships with other tech giants.
Already, OpenAI’s for-profit company has used this potential declaration as leverage against Microsoft — warning that if Microsoft will not agree to better terms, the nonprofit might issue this declaration and void their entire agreement, according to a person familiar with the company’s negotiations.
That’s pretty messed up. So whenever OpenAI says they’ve achieved AGI it’s just a gonna be a lie.
I’m actually surprised AGI isn’t better defined in the contract, or that there isn’t a burden of proof so that they can’t lie, but that was definitely on purpose. I really can’t imagine them severing that tie though; OpenAI simply isn’t financially stable enough, especially in the long term, and I’m sure they know it too.
I’m actually surprised AGI isn’t better defined in the contract
There’ll be a significant lawsuit if OpenAI tries such a declaration without MS on board with it.
But i’m not sure how much OpenAI is even investing toward AGI. LLM is their bread and butter and I don’t know many experts that think LLM is the path to AGI.
The fact that OpenAI have waived the threat of using the clause implies to me that they’ve defined it relatively loosely… or just that they’re really stupid, which may also be possible.
I did a little bit of looking and couldn’t find a figure on how much OpenAI spends on AGI compared to GenAI research, but in looking, I found this interesting:
https://openai.com/index/scale-the-benefits-of-ai/
Which begins with the following:
We are making progress on our mission to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity. Every week, over 250 million people around the world use ChatGPT to enhance their work, creativity, and learning…
Which seems like a shady placement of two unrelated things next to one another. Makes me wonder if texts like this have the goal of selling GenAI as AGI one day.
The constant hate i see for bluesky on Lemmy and the seemingly irresistible urge to constantly trash it feels not only unwarranted, but also sad how bitter so many people here seek to be.
While not bitter in particular, it is disheartening to see yet another VC-funded social network gain traction, especially under the guise of freedom and decentralization it doesn’t fulfill in the slightest.
Sadly, marketing works, and people just flock to where the ads lead them. And the wheel of Internet history takes a turn over and over again, as people are doomed to repeat their mistakes.
You might be right and in any case the new boss is better than the old boss right? Then again maybe this is just the honeymoon period which bluesky soaks up as many users as it can before the enshittification begins to start wringing profit out of the enterprise? Time will te if the hate is justified or just sour grapes.
Bluesky is just for consumers who don’t know any better. I’ve been alive long enough to notice that there are people who need to be “sold something” in order to see value in it.
We should be promoting Mastodon which is federated.
Take note Bluesky fans: Your “benevolent” controlling nonprofit can quickly become a for-profit if enough cash is thrown at the governing board…
Isn’t Bluesky an open-source implementation of an open protocol? And isn’t Bluesky already a for-profit organization? The point is you don’t trust the corporation. You trust the availability of the code and the protocol specification. People should be setting up instances just like they did with lemmy.
