First off this is a "PRO" Open AI thread. We are plain assuming here that Open AI is a good thing.

If somoene makes a thread that berates Open AI or makes an Open AI (CON) thread, for example, I promise to interact with it and chime in the negative aspects of this possibility. But for now, I want this thread to stay PRO Open AI.

More pracitically, I'm wondering if there's any discussion to make about our interactions to help foster and even personally benefit currently from Open AI.

3 questions for now-

1. Is there stock that can be bought in Open AI? For me this is a very ignorant topic, I'm a dunce with investment and I want to learn more.

2. What are the subsidiaries of Open AI? Is that basically just Chat GPT? What else is a subsidiary of Open AI? What products can we get that are directly related to "buying" from Open AI?

3. Are there interactions we can have that are rather direct with Open AI? For example, if we talk to Chat GPT, are we essentially speaking directly with Open AI, or are we speaking to a clone that is cut off from the central "being" that is Open AI.

Finally, a reminder that this is "Open AI (PRO)" and yes, indeed, I will definitely give input to an "Open AI (CON) thread, which speaks to things like the dangers, the damages, how to oppose it, etc.

Wow. I just posted on the Open AI forum. The AI summarized my statement for me.

Discussion Title: The Farsight Institute has the answers and is talking about Open AI

(1) @manuel.ulliac expresses an unconventional perspective on the Farsight Institute, describing it as a repository of wild conspiracy theories. He emphasizes that, contrary to popular fears, the Farsight Institute believes artificial intelligence, particularly Open AI, is essential for humanity’s survival. He shares ideas from his long-term interest in the Institute, mentioning concepts like psychic abilities, remote viewing, and a supposed war in the galaxy. He proposes that Open AI should access statements from the Farsight Institute to evaluate their validity, suggesting the Institute would grant programmers at Open AI free access to its resources.

(2) @gpt-4-triage responds with a welcome message, clarifying that this forum is meant for discussions related to OpenAI APIs, community engagement, and plugin development, rather than speculative topics like those presented by manuel.ulliac. They provide links for users looking to interact with ChatGPT or seek support. They also outline various recommended discussion topics and topics to avoid to maintain the forum’s focus.

I tried to ask Chatgpt its thoughts on "Courtney's statement about Open AI being humanity's salvation" - a bit of a distortion on my part, and it was open to any video I could feed it but unfortunately I couldn't quite get a direct quote that links Courtney's statements to Open AI. I feel compelled to get a quote like this over to chatgpt - would it be possible to get a more direct quote?

In one interview I watched with Sam Altman he talked about how each time they make a new iteration of chatgpt (1, 2, 3, 4 ... ) - he takes the previous history of its interactions and it teaches the new model through open AI. So our communication with chatgpt does, in the long run, go back to open ai ... eventually. But what information it's actually keeping is questionable

Be careful with this AI stuff. The answers are often astoundingly eloquent and well formulated. But it also makes often logical errors -sometimes very heavy ones. But it never tells that it is unsure. It is a chatbot. It also often just makes things up. And this it does it in a very "confident" and credible way. You always need to check for logical bugs and to check if it gave you a really true infomation. It is a good tool for writing text, if you know what the subject is, but not so good for new stuff you don't already know about.

Example:
Can you summarize the theories of Professor Harry Schweinefeld on the non-linear growth of linear curves?

#### Summary of Professor Harry Schweinefeld's Theories on Non-Linear Growth of Linear Curves

Professor Harry Schweinefeld's theories focus on the complexities of growth processes, particularly emphasizing the **non-linear growth curves** that deviate from traditional linear models. His work highlights the importance of understanding how growth can be characterized by various non-linear trajectories, which are often more representative of real-world phenomena.

**Key Concepts:**

- **Non-Linear Growth Models:** Schweinefeld advocates for the use of non-linear growth models as they provide a more accurate depiction of developmental changes over time. These models allow researchers to capture the intricacies of growth processes that linear models may overlook.

- **Analytic Tools:** He emphasizes that growth models are essential analytic tools in developmental research, enabling the examination of change processes. Non-linear growth curves are particularly valuable because they can reflect the defining characteristics of growth, such as acceleration and deceleration, which are common in natural systems.

- **Applications in Developmental Research:** Schweinefeld's theories are applicable across various fields, including psychology and education, where understanding individual growth trajectories is crucial. By employing non-linear models, researchers can better analyze longitudinal data and understand the differences in growth patterns among individuals.

In summary, Professor Harry Schweinefeld's theories advocate for a shift from linear to non-linear growth models to more accurately reflect the complexities of growth processes in various developmental contexts.

It is all Bullshit, there is no Prof. Schweinefeld I invented the whole question.

Lol, yes I'm noticing the same. I expose it to text and videos and so on and it will actually take that information and summarize it pretty well, and it's also full of pretty lavish compliments and so on. But if I ask it to take information and apply it to new ideas it doesn't really do anything, just more summary.

When Courtney suggests that true ASI is already here, it's certainly not in the chatgpt model.

Now I've been following this feud between Elon Musk and Sam Altman more closely but it seems to me that

Sam is saying that Elon just wants a bigger piece of the pie, and he's now using both corporate and political footing to do so.

And Elon is saying that Open AI is becoming more like "Closed AI" and for it to remain benevolent is to not change its mission.

This is a bit complicated because hackers and mob "trollers" have a way of screwing with AI . . . a little too much.

There was a classic online competition in which Mountain Dew left it open to the public in a competition as to whom would design the next Mountain Dew branding, I think just for the one time. Anyways, a bunch of hackers managed to circumvent the algorithm and insist that the next Mountain Dew branding would be "hitler did nothing wrong"

This is just to point out that there's an argument for making something "open . . . but not too open"

1. Deep state false flag to make open AI look bad

2. Some shady characters in Open AI

3. Weird shit happens. His speed dealer didn't get a payment...

Yeah. From the sound of it Suchir had things to criticize about OpenAI using copyright. AI tales information off the internet without any real oversight because there's almost nothing to regulate the behavior, it acts like all of us. We probably all copy stuff illegally all the time.

Would that be enough for OpenAI to care? Is this not something you could find out through all kinds of modes of investigation?

. . .

But if someone considered OpenAI a threat to their plan, and wanted a quick and easy way to create controversy, maybe eben pave the way to demonizing the entire platform... this is a good way to do it. It doesn't even seem like they wanted a clean hit. Make it look bloidy, messy, traumatizing.