Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

openai.com

451–460 of 623 posts

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#451
post #230
post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But so has every other big idea that went on to become reality, like planes (da Vinci was drawing designs for planes over 400 years before the first working ones). And so has every other big idea that didn't become reality, and that was the majority. Again, I have no problem with AI research whatsoever, but the prose was still eyebrow-raising considering the actual state of affairs. > They are very similar. They ar…

> And so has every other big idea that didn't become reality, and that was the majority. This is a really good point. Would be a fascinating read if someone were to collect all those examples and explore that a bit.

The most famous is the Philosopher's Stone: a substance that can convert base metals into gold.

But in itself, that was not the point. It would also transform the owner or user -- it was a hermetic symbol, a mechanical means to "pierce the veil" and to see the deep mystical and magical truths, the Real Reality. It was immanent, a thing in the world, that enabled the transcendent, to go beyond, above, outside of the world. Its discovery would have been the single most important moment in the history of the world, the moment in which humans had a reliable road to divinity.

Hmm. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

But out of alchemy came modern chemistry, and also some parts of the scientific method. After all, as some smart people worked out, you could systematically try all the permutations of materials that your reading had suggested as possibilities. That meant measuring, weighing, mixing properly, keeping detailed notes. Fundamental lab work is the unglamorous slab of concrete beneath the shining houses of the physical sciences. There were waves of hysteria and hype, but after each, something useful would be left behind, minus the sheen of unlimited dreams.

Hmm. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

These days it is possible for a device to transmute base metals into gold. But the operators have not, so far as I can deduce, ascended to any higher planes of existence. They have eschewed the ethereal and remained reliably corporeal.

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#453
post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

no. Although, it isn't clear to me that humans can do that either.

We don't simulate folding the proteins though. We actually do it for real in every cell in our body and we do it really fast.

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No one is anywhere close to achieving true AGI No one knows how far off true AGI is, just like no one in 1940 (or 1910) knew how far off fission weapons were. EDIT: I quite liked this article from a few years back [0], and the fission weapon prediction example is stolen from there. 0: https://intelligence.org/2017/10/13/fire-alarm/

This is a flawed analogy. The conceptual basis of nuclear weapons was well understood as soon as it was learned that the atom has a compact nucleus. The energy needed to bind that nucleus together gives a rough idea of the power of a fission weapon. If that energy could be liberated all at once, it would make an explosive orders of magnitude more powerful than anything known. It was hard to predict when or if such a…

I think there is a lot of evidence that explosive progress could be made quickly. Alphago zero, machine cision, sentiment analysis, machine translation.. voice.. etc etc etc

All these things have surged incredibly in less than a decade.

It's always a long way off until it isn't.

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#456
post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The atomic bomb was based on science theory. A computer can run many programs and do a great many things, but it will never be able to think by itself.

It does not need to. It just need to get complex enough. This is from an 1965 article: "If the machines are permitted to make all their own decisions, we can’t make any conjectures as to the results, because it is impossible to guess how such machines might behave. We only point out that the fate of the human race would be at the mercy of the machines. It might be argued that the human race would never be foolish eno…

I agree with the above, but imagine the same argument where "the machines" is replaced with "subject-matter experts", or "politicians acting on the advice of subject-matter experts".

The accumulated knowledge and skills of not just specialised individuals but entire institutions, working on highly technical and abstract areas of society, seems like it has created a kind of empathy gap between the people ostensibly wielding power and those who are experiencing the effects of that power (or the limits of that power).

> "... turning them off would amount to suicide."

Although this conclusion appears equally valid in the replacement argument, it sadly doesn't come with the wanted guarantee of "therefore that wouldn't happen".

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No one is anywhere close to achieving true AGI No one knows how far off true AGI is, just like no one in 1940 (or 1910) knew how far off fission weapons were. EDIT: I quite liked this article from a few years back [0], and the fission weapon prediction example is stolen from there. 0: https://intelligence.org/2017/10/13/fire-alarm/

This is a flawed analogy. The conceptual basis of nuclear weapons was well understood as soon as it was learned that the atom has a compact nucleus. The energy needed to bind that nucleus together gives a rough idea of the power of a fission weapon. If that energy could be liberated all at once, it would make an explosive orders of magnitude more powerful than anything known. It was hard to predict when or if such a…

> This is a flawed analogy. The conceptual basis of nuclear weapons was well understood as soon as it was learned that the atom has a compact nucleus. The energy needed to bind that nucleus together gives a rough idea of the power of a fission weapon. If that energy could be liberated all at once, it would make an explosive orders of magnitude more powerful than anything known.

Extrapolating as you seem to be here, when should I expect to see a total conversion reactor show up? I want 100% of the energy in that Uranium, dammit - not the piddly percentages you get from fission!

Seriously, I think you overestimate how predictable nuclear weapons were. Fission was discovered in 1938.

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#458
I'm surprised to see the amount of downvotes that follow negativity pointed at Microsoft. What's going on here?

EDIT: Oh. I see. I wasn't aware that OpenAI was a YC thing. I've been a member of Hacker News through various accounts for countless years, however this is the first time I've seen moderation pushing towards an obvious YC agenda. Very interesting...

EDIT2: Actually, after reading the comments - I find it more likely that Microsoft/OpenAI stakeholders are participating heavily. Over 800 upvotes for this post makes it quite remarkable... I'll leave my tinfoil hat over there...

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#460
post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a flawed analogy. The conceptual basis of nuclear weapons was well understood as soon as it was learned that the atom has a compact nucleus. The energy needed to bind that nucleus together gives a rough idea of the power of a fission weapon. If that energy could be liberated all at once, it would make an explosive orders of magnitude more powerful than anything known. It was hard to predict when or if such a…

I think there is a lot of evidence that explosive progress could be made quickly. Alphago zero, machine cision, sentiment analysis, machine translation.. voice.. etc etc etc All these things have surged incredibly in less than a decade. It's always a long way off until it isn't.

Those are all impressive technical achievements to be sure, but they don't constitute evidence of progress toward AGI. If I'm driving my car from Seattle to Honolulu and I make it to San Diego it sure seems like I made a lot of progress?
Post reply on HN