Rank ordered by reputation / caring about having a trustworthy corporate identity: [Google, Anthropic] in either order depending who you ask, OpenAI, most of the Chinese AI corporations, then Grok.
This is unfortunate situation to find ourselves in when Grok was also recently at the top of the Pareto frontier for quality/price. Dunno if it still is, this all moves too fast, but it was for at least long enough for me to have heard about it.
Google?!?!. From where I sit, Google is just above the Chinese. They've been bad-faith actors for more than a decade, I guess everyone is just so used to it that they ignore it.
I there's anyone I don't trust with AI, it's the worlds #1 company in spying on people, in collection of Pii, in tracking, and many many many times caught literally lying about it.
Google already knows more about everyone on the planet, than any other 10 organizations combined. Frankly, sadly, they're all, well.. scummy, just each in different ways.
> I there's anyone I don't trust with AI, it's the worlds #1 company in spying on people, in collection of Pii, in tracking, and many many many times caught literally lying about it.
If you gave me this description in isolation, I would assume you were talking about Meta, who are not on your shortlist despite also having AI models.
However, this is beside the point. Note my careful phrasing: I was not disagreeing with you asking "Who are the good actors within the space?" (which I understood as a rhetorical way of saying "none of them"), I was only rank-ordering them.
To me, it appears Grok isn't even putting in effort to try to look trustworthy. China is trying, though there is suspicion. OpenAI likes to say the right things, though (while I cannot see it myself with regards specifically to his work at OpenAI*) most commentary about Altman regards him as a wrong'un, the phrase "King of the cannibals" comes to mind, and the CEO is limiting trust in the company**.
Comparing Anthropic and Google: Anthropic looks to me like they're actually trying to do the right thing even when it's expensive and painful, but some hate them just for being in AI at all. Google appears to still have a competent PR department, though I don't trust them myself. So, I'd rank Anthropic then Google, but I think there's many who would rank Google then Anthropic.
* But I do put about 40% odds on his sister's allegations being true.
** My guess here is that we all saw Zuckerberg being presented as a heroic underdog and how that turned out, and naturally people don't want a repeat of this.
Surprisingly, despite their motivations in doing so, the Chinese models being open-weight and therefore able to run locally on your own hardware, are far more trustworthy than any blackbox which solely exists to enrich X or Y billionaire.
At this point Chinese. They release research papers and big open models.
Then Google. They often show human centric features in their conferences. Like taking better pictures of people with different skin color, helping blind people and giving you more control over ads (while acklowiding that this is a thing).
Then Anthropic for their transparency on their blog and certain things they say.
Then OpenAI. OpenAI def took a dive for me after the Apple alegiations.
Grok and xAI? bottom last. Not wanting to give Elon Musk my data. You know that you can't trust Chinese people but they might surprise you. But with Elon Musk? No character trait which indicates anything trust worthy.
Flip flopping left and right, switching from left wing to right wing (which feels calculated but badly executed) and single handingly hurting people and children around the globe (USAID, Gasturbines at his data centers etc.)
Rank ordered by reputation / caring about having a trustworthy corporate identity: [Google, Anthropic] in either order depending who you ask, OpenAI, most of the Chinese AI corporations, then Grok.
This is unfortunate situation to find ourselves in when Grok was also recently at the top of the Pareto frontier for quality/price. Dunno if it still is, this all moves too fast, but it was for at least long enough for me to have heard about it.
For me, the Chinese labs are far and away the most trustworthy.
Naive.
2 replies →
Google?!?!. From where I sit, Google is just above the Chinese. They've been bad-faith actors for more than a decade, I guess everyone is just so used to it that they ignore it.
I there's anyone I don't trust with AI, it's the worlds #1 company in spying on people, in collection of Pii, in tracking, and many many many times caught literally lying about it.
Google already knows more about everyone on the planet, than any other 10 organizations combined. Frankly, sadly, they're all, well.. scummy, just each in different ways.
> I there's anyone I don't trust with AI, it's the worlds #1 company in spying on people, in collection of Pii, in tracking, and many many many times caught literally lying about it.
If you gave me this description in isolation, I would assume you were talking about Meta, who are not on your shortlist despite also having AI models.
However, this is beside the point. Note my careful phrasing: I was not disagreeing with you asking "Who are the good actors within the space?" (which I understood as a rhetorical way of saying "none of them"), I was only rank-ordering them.
To me, it appears Grok isn't even putting in effort to try to look trustworthy. China is trying, though there is suspicion. OpenAI likes to say the right things, though (while I cannot see it myself with regards specifically to his work at OpenAI*) most commentary about Altman regards him as a wrong'un, the phrase "King of the cannibals" comes to mind, and the CEO is limiting trust in the company**.
Comparing Anthropic and Google: Anthropic looks to me like they're actually trying to do the right thing even when it's expensive and painful, but some hate them just for being in AI at all. Google appears to still have a competent PR department, though I don't trust them myself. So, I'd rank Anthropic then Google, but I think there's many who would rank Google then Anthropic.
* But I do put about 40% odds on his sister's allegations being true.
** My guess here is that we all saw Zuckerberg being presented as a heroic underdog and how that turned out, and naturally people don't want a repeat of this.
10 replies →
The open source and open weight models.
Surprisingly, despite their motivations in doing so, the Chinese models being open-weight and therefore able to run locally on your own hardware, are far more trustworthy than any blackbox which solely exists to enrich X or Y billionaire.
None. There are no good actors in a profit-driven endeavour. But open-weight seems pretty good (the chinese)
The Chinese are surely less evil than Anthropic, OpenAI and/or Google, at this stage at least.
You’ve got to be kidding me. Last I checked, Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google haven’t systematically exterminated an entire culture of people.
[flagged]
2 replies →
You're really walking empty handed and with your pants around our ankles in this one.
Do you really think the US and US big tech in general have a leg to stand on in this regard?
2 replies →
At this point Chinese. They release research papers and big open models.
Then Google. They often show human centric features in their conferences. Like taking better pictures of people with different skin color, helping blind people and giving you more control over ads (while acklowiding that this is a thing).
Then Anthropic for their transparency on their blog and certain things they say.
Then OpenAI. OpenAI def took a dive for me after the Apple alegiations.
Grok and xAI? bottom last. Not wanting to give Elon Musk my data. You know that you can't trust Chinese people but they might surprise you. But with Elon Musk? No character trait which indicates anything trust worthy.
Flip flopping left and right, switching from left wing to right wing (which feels calculated but badly executed) and single handingly hurting people and children around the globe (USAID, Gasturbines at his data centers etc.)
[flagged]