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.
This is a very good point. It makes me a bit uneasy, even though it is still better than driverless cars. Aside from this, I also have mixed feelings about the fact that every pound being put into development and purchasing of these busses could have been put into the expansion of existing routes…
And it’s not even something that would drastically improve my experience if it was fully successful. Busses are already one of the safest modes, being safer than trains in several countries. Maybe I’ve missed something and someone can correct me, but this feels like throwing money at technology for technology’s sake.
I mean… a form of Microsoft Defender is available for Linux, but only for enterprise customers if I remember correctly 😅
2017 a few days before Christmas, dad kicked me out of the house :/
That repo is much more active than I would have thought 😅 Can’t wait to see this somewhere in production
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:
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.