None of those are anywhere close to as easy for the average person to access as OpenAI’s offerings. And none are as good as GPT-4 afaik.
There are many arguments one can make against OpenAI. I just don’t see how “they don’t want to make AI widely available” makes any sense at all. A world where OpenAI never existed would clearly be a world where AI is far less accessible to the average person.
There is no way to reconcile their founding statements and principles with what they’re doing now. They don’t even publish legitimate research papers any longer and barely even try to defend themselves as aligning with their prior mission.
I think in their minds, their mission has always been to make AI widely available. It seems like they initially thought open source and open research were a viable path to achieving that mission, but later they changed their minds. I get why people are upset about that pivot, but considering they single-handedly brought AI out of the research lab and into the mainstream, it seems hard to argue that they were wrong.
In any case, sticking to the point of this discussion, there is no indication of any kind that they don’t intend to make AI widely available. It’s like saying McDonald’s doesn’t intend to make hamburgers widely available.
To be clear, widely available is my paraphrase while their founding principles stated that the technology should be “freely available” and explicitly reference open source. That’s entirely inconsistent with what they’re doing now. What you’re calling a “pivot” is just casting aside what they said they stood for in pursuit of money, which fine, whatever, happens all the time. We don’t have to strain ourselves making excuses for them, because, again, they hardly bother to do that themselves.
