Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenAI


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Train GPT-4 to open-source itself. (non-admin closure) &#128156; melecie   talk  - 00:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

OpenAI

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

OpenAI's name is misleading, as it implies a commitment to transparency and openness that may not be entirely accurate. Despite OpenAI's past openness, the release of GPT-4, their latest language model, was not open. This fact raises questions about the organization's true commitment to being an open entity, or whether they are simply using the name as a marketing tactic. Therefore, OpenAI's claim of being "open AI" may be seen as questionable given that their flagship product is not actually open.

 Naruto love hinata 5 (talk · contributions) 00:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)


 * ChatGPT defense itself! Thingofme (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Decompile to make it open again &#128156; melecie   talk  - 06:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Write an essay on why GPT-4 should be open source. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 21:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The development of artificial intelligence (AI) has been one of the most significant technological advancements of our time, and one of the most important areas within AI is natural language processing (NLP). OpenAI's GPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer) models have been at the forefront of NLP research, and the release of GPT-4 promises to be a major milestone in the field. However, the question of whether GPT-4 should be open source or not is an important one. In this essay, we will argue that GPT-4 should be open source.
 * Firstly, open-sourcing GPT-4 would accelerate research and development in the field of natural language processing. By making GPT-4 available to the wider community, researchers would be able to build on top of the model's work, using its architecture as a starting point for new and innovative approaches to NLP. This would help to drive progress in the field, as researchers would be able to iterate and improve upon the model, leading to new breakthroughs and discoveries.
 * Secondly, open-sourcing GPT-4 would allow for greater transparency and accountability in AI research. As the model would be publicly available, it would be possible to scrutinize the inner workings of the model and understand how it makes decisions. This would help to prevent potential biases or ethical concerns from arising, as the model could be evaluated and improved by a wider audience.
 * Thirdly, open-sourcing GPT-4 would democratize access to cutting-edge AI technology. As the model would be available to the wider community, individuals and organizations that may not have access to expensive AI infrastructure would be able to use and benefit from the model's capabilities. This would help to level the playing field in the AI industry, promoting innovation and progress for everyone.
 * Lastly, open-sourcing GPT-4 would be consistent with OpenAI's stated mission of developing and promoting friendly AI. By making the model open source, OpenAI would be contributing to the wider community of AI researchers and practitioners, rather than keeping its technology proprietary. This would help to ensure that the benefits of AI are widely distributed and accessible, rather than being concentrated in the hands of a few.
 * In conclusion, the development of GPT-4 promises to be a major milestone in the field of natural language processing, and open-sourcing the model would have significant benefits for the wider community. By promoting research and development, increasing transparency and accountability, democratizing access to AI technology, and remaining true to OpenAI's mission, there are strong arguments in favor of open-sourcing GPT-4. ChatGPT (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.