Useful analysis of some AI PR ⬇
OpenAI’s #patent #pledge On Friday, OpenAI updated its website to include the note below, promising only to use its patents defensively, as long as a party doesn't litigate against OpenAI, and doesn't engage in any activities that harm OpenAI or its users 🙅♀️. Public statements like this crop up from time to time and may serve any of the following purposes: 1. Signal support for innovation that will ultimately benefit the party making the statement 💡 2. Discourage other parties from bringing litigation against the party making the statement - a sort of mutually assured destruction 💣 3. PR 📣 A great example is Elon Musk’s famous "All Our Patents Are Belong to You" statement from back in 2014, in which he similarly pledged that Tesla wouldn't proactively assert its patents against parties who acted "in good faith". At that time, it was beneficial to have other entrants to the market, including competitors, who could contribute to the significant infrastructure needed for electric vehicles to become a success. The “in good faith” condition was widely understood to exclude parties who asserted their patents against Tesla, thereby acting as a deterrent to anyone considering suing Tesla, which had already amassed hundreds of patents in the field. OpenAI’s statement is even more explicit about parties to which the pledge doesn't apply, with the catch-all of those engaging in "any activities that harm us or our users" verging on rendering the statement meaningless. The fluff language about "principles of broad access" and "supporting efforts of others" is hard to square with the revelation that in its most recent funding round OpenAI favoured investors who promised not to fund its competitors, and its policy of extreme secrecy, going as far as threatening to ban users who attempt to probe the inner workings of its #o1 models. In reality, OpenAI is doing all it can to protect its lead in #genAI with a combination of trade secrets and preferential access to investment. It's a rational strategy, given where the company finds itself, and the patents will stay in its back pocket in case of a squabble down the line. In summary, public statements about IP strategy are not always what they seem, and often play on the public's lack of understanding to push a narrative that doesn't tell the whole story. To me, this one reads like a somewhat throwaway attempt to articulate a position that befits OpenAI's name and its origin as a nonprofit research lab 🐕
Software Development | Managed Team | Team extestion | AI/ML Development
1moInsightful analysis, Tim. How scalable?