[2pointsomone]

If anyone paying the right price to access a product, and no underlying technology, making it "open", isn't most of the world's technology open? Isn't Apple really OpenApple? Isn't Oracle really OpenOracle? Apple probably puts out more open-source tech than OpenAI.

Does the word mean much anymore, then? Is it nothing more than a sentiment then?

Perhaps OpenAI should have renamed itself to "AI for all" or something when they adopted the capped-profit model. Perhaps they should've returned donor funds and turned fully for-profit too. Perhaps that was a genuine resolution and pivot, which every org should be able to allowed to do.

Genuine question, I run a nonprofit whose name starts with "open". But we do explicitly bring closed source work to be more openly licensed, without necessarily making the technology open-source.

[rmbyrro]

Well, if AI is the product, Apple is OpenLuxuryHardware, and Oracle is OpenScrewYou.

[2pointsomone]

:'D

[neom]

Red Hat made off alright. Genuine questions: If OpenAI can pull off something like Red Hat, would people be more, or less, ok with it?

[antonyt]

The real villain here is OpenTable!