Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Introducing OpenAI

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 392 posts

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#51

Post by toomuchtodo »

negrit wrote: post #18
azzafazza wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I seem to have missed a story here. A quick Google search turned up a letter on Quora, https://www.quora.com/Is-working-in-Infosys-as-bad-as-this-l... , is that what you are refering too?

YC is lobbying to change the H-1B system in order the let startups get more H-1Bs. Infosys is blatantly abusing and cheating the H-1B system so bad that startups are getting penalized when sponsoring H-1B visas. And now YC is getting in bed with infosys...

On the plus side, Ted Cruz (who I despise terribly) is sponsoring some quality H1B reform legislation (which reduces the number of H1B visas available, and requires compensation be a minimum of $110K/year).

http://www.computerworld.com/article/3014365/it-careers/sen-...

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#52

Post by johann28 »

baconner wrote: post #38

"We believe AI should be an extension of individual human wills..." I realize that today machine learning really is purely a tool, but the idea that ai will and should always be that doesn't sit quite right with me. Ml tech absent of consciousnesses remains a tool and an incredibly useful one, but in the long term you have to ask the question - at what point does an ai transition from a tool to a slave. Seems some ti…

There is no natural cutoff. If they become too creepy and make us emotionally attached, we'll change them so they don't freak us out in that way.

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#53

Post by [deleted] »

rjvir wrote: post #4

> Sam, Greg, Elon, Reid Hoffman, Jessica Livingston, Peter Thiel, Amazon Web Services (AWS), Infosys, and YC Research are donating to support OpenAI. In total, these funders have committed $1 billion Funny how they just slipped that in at the end

[deleted]

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#54

Post by Numberwang »

_sentient wrote: post #5

$1B in committed funding. Just, wow. Side note: I wonder if the Strong AI argument can benefit from something akin to Pascal's Wager, in that the upside of being right is ~infinite with only a finite downside in the opposing case.

http://hermiene.net/short-stories/i_have_no_mouth.html

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#55

Post by johann28 »

hacker_9 wrote: post #48
jonknee wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans are really stupid without training too.

Not true. Humans can adapt to many environments by pulling in training from other related environments and applying it to the new data. Some call this generalised learning, but I think it points more to our ability to shape everything we know to any given problem - something 'beyond' just generalising.

You're over-glorifying humans. We're still just a savannah ape and our skills reflect that.

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#56

Post by baconner »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #50
baconner wrote: post #38

"We believe AI should be an extension of individual human wills..." I realize that today machine learning really is purely a tool, but the idea that ai will and should always be that doesn't sit quite right with me. Ml tech absent of consciousnesses remains a tool and an incredibly useful one, but in the long term you have to ask the question - at what point does an ai transition from a tool to a slave. Seems some ti…

The idea is not that we should build and (try to) suppress a sentient AI; that would be a bad idea for numerous reasons. However, we don't necessarily need to build a sentient AI in the first place; we can build a process that has reasoning capabilities far above human without actually having agency of its own.

See I think that's exactly where it becomes complicated. Can an entity with reasoning capabilities far beyond that of humans have its agency suppressed successfully? And is it ethical to do so or is that internally designed suppression somehow ethically different from the external suppression applied against human slaves?

If you could engineer a human being with his/her agency removed so that you could use their reasoning skill without all that pesky self will would that be ethical?

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#57

Post by samstave »

dang wrote: post #41
negrit wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YC is lobbying to change the H-1B system in order the let startups get more H-1Bs. Infosys is blatantly abusing and cheating the H-1B system so bad that startups are getting penalized when sponsoring H-1B visas. And now YC is getting in bed with infosys...

The relationships of large organizations can be surprisingly complex; consider Apple and Samsung. YC isn't large, of course, but Infosys is. The information content of the OpenAI funding announcement for immigration questions is probably zero. (No special knowledge behind this comment, just a general observation.) Edit: Please don't break the HN guidelines by complaining about downvoting. Downvotes to your comment up…

Off topic: But I have always wondered why we have a threashold to hit before we can downvote comments - but why can we never downvote posts? Or is the karma threshold just really high to have that function?

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#58

Post by jonknee »

hacker_9 wrote: post #48
jonknee wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans are really stupid without training too.

Not true. Humans can adapt to many environments by pulling in training from other related environments and applying it to the new data. Some call this generalised learning, but I think it points more to our ability to shape everything we know to any given problem - something 'beyond' just generalising.

You were born with millions of years of training and still couldn't care for yourself without many years of personalized training.

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#59

Post by baconner »

dools wrote: post #40
baconner wrote: post #38

"We believe AI should be an extension of individual human wills..." I realize that today machine learning really is purely a tool, but the idea that ai will and should always be that doesn't sit quite right with me. Ml tech absent of consciousnesses remains a tool and an incredibly useful one, but in the long term you have to ask the question - at what point does an ai transition from a tool to a slave. Seems some ti…

We've been pretty happy to enslave animals in semi-symbiotic relationships for thousands of years. It's about the same as that.

Except that (right or wrong) we most certainly weigh that against their intelligence.

Re: Introducing OpenAI

#60

Post by minimaxir »

Numberwang wrote: post #54
_sentient wrote: post #5

$1B in committed funding. Just, wow. Side note: I wonder if the Strong AI argument can benefit from something akin to Pascal's Wager, in that the upside of being right is ~infinite with only a finite downside in the opposing case.

http://hermiene.net/short-stories/i_have_no_mouth.html

While a great short story and should be required reading for sci-fi fans, there's a big difference between the singularity and omnipotence.
Post reply on HN