Yes, Sam Altman did breach trust. Worse, he made it hard for the world to collaborate.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/openai-microsoft-hit-with-new-author-copyright-lawsuit-over-ai-training/ar-AA1kmo8Z

When Sam Altman was fired, some media house reported that the Board felt that with the Open AI Open Day, Sam had taken the organisation towards a commercial direction that did not fit with the original goals of Open AI. 

Open AI was built as a non profit, to create AI for ALL. All being the operative word here. Equitable access to AI capabilities is vital to an equitable world. Whether we like it or not, AI is the competitive advantage of the future. 

But the bigger issue is this - Open AI was trained on possibly yottabytes of data by ordinary citizens and creators of content - on the assumption that the LLM would be used for AI for All. Just like Wikipedia was created by millions of individual contributors giving their time and knowledge for free - on the premise that it was a free, open-to-all public encyclopedia. 

The Microsoft investment was the first dent in the "for ALL". In one stroke, only one company stood to gain the MOST from the LLM - from the contribution of millions of individuals whose work was consumed by Open AI to create Dalle2 and ChatGPT. 

The story is an action replay of the Wikipedia story. Google donated significantly to Wikipedia and magically, Wiki results started appearing on top of Google search results. Searchers found the best information on top, and Wiki got a lot more hits (and donation, of course). It was a win-win for both - but not for the creators who gave hours to create Wiki. They never got compensated. 

It is the same for Open AI. It used content from literally millions of creators to make Picasso like paintings, write in the style of so-and-so author, and write specific types of content - college essays, research papers, opinion pieces - based on the essays, papers, and opinions of people who did not, and never will, see a dime. 

The trend of a nonprofit creating something big and universal, only to sell it to the highest bidder, is not just against the moral principle. It is also a breach of trust. The creators who donated their time and knowledge generously, as they did prompt engineering and provided feedback to ChatGPT, were contributing to AI for ALL. They were not contributing to Bing's Image Generator or Bing ChatGPT.

Secondly, and more importantly, as a creator, why would I trust the next "Good for All"? 

I know I wouldn't, personally speaking. 

And to me, there is something very wrong with both these things. 

Which is why I love this news: 

https://www.reuters.com/legal/openai-microsoft-hit-with-new-author-copyright-lawsuit-over-ai-training-2023-11-21/

But here is something I cannot understand: 

Why would a non-profit need to monetise?

Someone was funding Open AI from 2015 to the time of the MS investment. Why was that model not sustainable? 

In unrelated news: 

Bard can now analyse Youtube videos and give you really intelligent answers. 

https://www.msn.com/en-in/money/topstories/google-bard-ai-can-now-watch-youtube-videos-and-answer-your-questions-here-s-how-to-use-new-feature/ar-AA1koDdn

But the millions of youtube creators that are helping Google monopolise the search market even more, will never see a dime of that multi-billion revenue. 

#InDefenceOfTheCommonMan