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

Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 623 posts

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#171

Post by nbeleski »

pron wrote: post #80
gdb wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(I work at OpenAI.) It comes down to whether you believe AGI is achievable. We've talked about why we think it might be: https://medium.com/syncedreview/openai-founder-short-term-ag... , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHCSNsLKHfM And we certainly have more of a plan for building it than warp drives :). EDIT: I personally think the case for near-term AGI is strong enough that it'd be hard for me work on any other pro…

> It comes down to whether you believe AGI is achievable. No, it does not. I very much believe AI (or AGI, as you call it) is achievable, but may I remind you that some years after the invention of neural networks, Norbert Wiener, one of the greatest minds of his generations, said that the secret of intelligence would be unlocked within five years, and Alan Turing -- a component of your very own post-pre-AGI era's AG…

I believe your opinion aligns pretty well with a crescent number of researchers that see in investments like this exactly the scenario for the warp-drive you described.

In your opinion what should computer scientists be focusing on in order to achieve more advanced AI systems? I'm thinking things such as reasoning, causality, embodied cognition, goal creation, etc.

And this is without even delving into the ethics aspects of (some instances of) AI research.

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#172

Post by lm28469 »

ALittleLight wrote: post #149
runT1ME wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>we are not even close to achieving insect-level intelligence. Is this true? Is there an insect turing test?

I don't see how it could be. What can insect brains do that we couldn't get AI to do?

What can a modern F1 tire do that we couldn't do with a 500BC wooden wheel ?

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#173

Post by chillacy »

pron wrote: post #80
gdb wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(I work at OpenAI.) It comes down to whether you believe AGI is achievable. We've talked about why we think it might be: https://medium.com/syncedreview/openai-founder-short-term-ag... , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHCSNsLKHfM And we certainly have more of a plan for building it than warp drives :). EDIT: I personally think the case for near-term AGI is strong enough that it'd be hard for me work on any other pro…

> It comes down to whether you believe AGI is achievable. No, it does not. I very much believe AI (or AGI, as you call it) is achievable, but may I remind you that some years after the invention of neural networks, Norbert Wiener, one of the greatest minds of his generations, said that the secret of intelligence would be unlocked within five years, and Alan Turing -- a component of your very own post-pre-AGI era's AG…

So you’re saying.. it comes down to whether you believe AGI is achievable within our lifetime? Or even worth contributing to at all even. I think the parent has made their position pretty clear through their employment choices, that’s a level of skin in the game that naysayers don’t really have.

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#174

Post by jhrmnn »

ALittleLight wrote: post #149
runT1ME wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>we are not even close to achieving insect-level intelligence. Is this true? Is there an insect turing test?

I don't see how it could be. What can insect brains do that we couldn't get AI to do?

Controllably fly in strong wind using very primitive sensors.

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#175

Post by misterman0 »

tiborsaas wrote: post #124
macleginn wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We still cannot convincingly model behaviour of even simplest individual organisms whose neural circuitry we know in minute detail.

What do you mean by "model behavior"? We have AI systems that can learn walking, running and other behavior with just trial and error, I would call that simple behavior. Now here's a more advanced example to teach a virutal character how to flex in the gym: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kie4wjB1MCw That's a bit more advanced than simple walking. Here's a deployed AI to a real robot "crab": https://www.youtube.com/w…

"We have AI systems that can learn walking, running and other [...]"

In one of your examples, which are all of narrow AI, we see a mechanical crab powered by ML that has become specialized in walking with a broken limb, which is not even close to what we need if we aim for AGI. For AGI we don't need agents that mimic simple behavior. In my opinion, _mimicking_ behavior will not lead to AGI.

What _will_ lead to AGI? No one knows.

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#176

Post by narrator »

gdb wrote: post #76
pron wrote: post #40

Congrats on the investment, but this release reads like a parody. I believe that building a beneficial warp-drive engine will be the most important technological development in human history, with the potential to shape the trajectory of humanity. The aliens we're sure to encounter will be capable of mastering more fields than any one human — like a tool which combines the skills of Curie, Turing, and Bach. An alien…

(I work at OpenAI.) It comes down to whether you believe AGI is achievable. We've talked about why we think it might be: https://medium.com/syncedreview/openai-founder-short-term-ag... , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHCSNsLKHfM And we certainly have more of a plan for building it than warp drives :). EDIT: I personally think the case for near-term AGI is strong enough that it'd be hard for me work on any other pro…

There are certain types of algorithms such as protein folding that are exponential time in silicon, but constant time in biochemistry. Right now AI can approximate polynomial time algorithms like alpha/beta minimax for game playing in constant time, but can it approximate exponential time algorithms in constant time?

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#177

Post by [deleted] »

runT1ME wrote: post #100
pron wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It comes down to whether you believe AGI is achievable. No, it does not. I very much believe AI (or AGI, as you call it) is achievable, but may I remind you that some years after the invention of neural networks, Norbert Wiener, one of the greatest minds of his generations, said that the secret of intelligence would be unlocked within five years, and Alan Turing -- a component of your very own post-pre-AGI era's AG…

>we are not even close to achieving insect-level intelligence. Is this true? Is there an insect turing test?

[deleted]

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#178

Post by [deleted] »

gdb wrote: post #140
tosh wrote: post #64

New York Times has a bit more context > Mr. Nadella said Microsoft would not necessarily invest that billion dollars all at once. It could be doled out over the course of a decade or more. Microsoft is investing dollars that will be fed back into its own business, as OpenAI purchases computing power from the software giant, and the collaboration between the two companies could yield a wide array of technologies. http…

(I work at OpenAI.) > It could be doled out over the course of a decade or more. The NYT article is misleading here. We'll definitely spend the $1B within 5 years, and maybe much faster. We certainly do plan to be a big Azure customer though!

[deleted]

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#179

Post by thfuran »

reroute1 wrote: post #163
thfuran wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It comes down to whether you believe AGI is achievable How could it possibly not be achievable? We know for certain general intelligence is physically realizable - we exist.

Perhaps it is naturally occurring and not artificially reproducible (or possible for US to reproduce). Why should we assume that it is? Because we have reproduced other things? That doesn't necessitate our ability to create everything conceivable.

>Perhaps it is naturally occurring and not artificially reproducible

What does that even mean? Nature doesn't operate on special nature-physics distinct from the physics of artificial systems.

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#180

Post by why_only_15 »

visarga wrote: post #153
arethuza wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, presumably you say this as a GI yourself so really we are arguing about the "A"? :-)

Humans are not GI's - evidenced by the fact that we have no idea how to build an AGI. We're only good at surviving using society, technology and all the resources of nature.

What does a general intelligence even mean then? Ultimately we don't care about generalization past a certain point - generalization as good as humans is good enough.
Post reply on HN