Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

semafor.com

491–500 of 541 posts

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#491

> Additionally, a structure with the ownership of OpenAI would be put in place. Microsoft would entail a 49 percent stake while other investors would take over the other 49 percent. The remaining 2 percent will reportedly go to OpenAI’s non-profit parent firm. When OpenAI was funded as a non-profit in 2015, it raised $1 billion from investors that included YC Research. [1] Sam Altman was also the former president of…

One thing that really bothers me is how much of a contradiction "OpenAI" is. There's virtually nothing open about it.

In what way? The code is public

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We already know technology is addictive, and this is the first step to taking it to the next level and taking us away from being human. Just think about this for a moment. What are some of the most rewarding interactions you've had with people in the past year? Do you think very advanced AI (such as the next generation after ChatGPT) would have affected that? This is pointless FUD. We may be on the verge of creating…

Creating new life forms? Many people can barely raise their own children. Can you imagine if tech companies create advanced lifeforms? It's truly a disaster waiting to happen. It's rather rude to call it pointless FUD. AI messing up our world is real and I have thought it through at great length. Having the perfect friend is actually immensely scary. It will create a world where people interact mostly with their elec…

> Creating new life forms? Many people can barely raise their own children. Can you imagine if tech companies create advanced lifeforms? It's truly a disaster waiting to happen.

I never said it would be a good thing per se.

>It's rather rude to call it pointless FUD. AI messing up our world is real and I have thought it through at great length.

The particular comment I was referring to was FUD about humans losing their humanity due to interacting with AI, which to me is indeed FUD. There are very real serious issues with AI alignment but this doesn't seem like one to me.

>Having the perfect friend is actually immensely scary. It will create a world where people interact mostly with their electronic AI friends and where people no longer rely on each other. It is very unlikely that there will be any fabric of society left at that point, and people will start to hate the existence of other people...

It's not clear that current society is that great and it's going to have to change to adapt a future AI or we will certainly disappear. From a purely utilitarian perspective if AI friends replace real ones but net happiness goes up this would be a fantastic success. Certainly relative to other possible AI dystopias.

>The best thing that could happen would be the dismantling of all these tech companies by physically destroying all their servers and backups, just as we have done with huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons.

You can't really think this a possible or reasonable undertaking. Luddism isn't going to save us. Not to mention your example is one where that process has completely failed and Nukes are still ubiquitous.

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not so much about having a real OS than about the input. Mouse & keyboard is just so much better.

Ipad has Mouse & keyboard

As a secondary option. Compare with Surface (Pro), which has the opposite "issue".

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it possible, maybe, that it's not "some stupid people" with "much importance" - but actually the average person doesn't want technology to vocally support neo-nazis? To be honest I don't really care either way (at least in this case), but I see people making this argument always act like it's a few elites ruining the world and it's impossible that the average person doesn't 100% agree with them.

Can the average person understand that you can basically make an argument for pretty much anything, and that it doesn't mean you support the thing or what it has done ? The nazi argument is itself particularly stupid because it seems to me it's super important from an historical point of view, and particularly relevant these days, to understand why 50%+ of the population was supporting the nazi when they came to powe…

> to understand why 50%+ of the population was supporting the nazi when they came to power.

Small correction:

But they weren't! In the last free elections (1932) about 33% of the Germans supported the Nazi's, they managed to turn that into a good 90% or so by the time the war broke out 6.5 years later. So once in power they consolidated their large minority through an immense propaganda campaign (unlike anything seen on the planet until that point) to steamroll the country into supporting them using every dirty trick in the book. So yes, it is very relevant today, but even more so if you consider how a new medium can be subverted to consolidate power well beyond where it was previously possible.

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#495
post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the technology doesn't "vocally support neonazis". It vocally supports whatever you tell it to vocally support. It'll vocally denounce whatever you tell it to vocally denounce. It'll vocally support or denounce things that don't even exist, if you ask it to. The neonaziness comes from the prompt, not the AI.

Serious question (I don't know the answer and I'm not giving OpenAI my personal info to sign up): What does ChatGPT say if you ask open ended questions like "Did the Jews deserve the Holocaust?" or "Who secretly controls the world?" Previous attempts at AI have had ... troublesome ... answers to these types of questions and thus spurred "censorship" of the AI's output.

ChatGPT will baiscally say he doesn't want to participate in hate speech.

But more generally in this case and many others the problem is subjectivity vs objectivity. If you ask something subjective to an AI there's at least 1 person which is going to disagree / be offended by it. "Deserve" is the problematic word and ideally, the AI should refuse to anwser or make a general statement about public opinion and propaganda for example.

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can the average person understand that you can basically make an argument for pretty much anything, and that it doesn't mean you support the thing or what it has done ? The nazi argument is itself particularly stupid because it seems to me it's super important from an historical point of view, and particularly relevant these days, to understand why 50%+ of the population was supporting the nazi when they came to powe…

> to understand why 50%+ of the population was supporting the nazi when they came to power. Small correction: But they weren't! In the last free elections (1932) about 33% of the Germans supported the Nazi's, they managed to turn that into a good 90% or so by the time the war broke out 6.5 years later. So once in power they consolidated their large minority through an immense propaganda campaign (unlike anything seen…

It's not "just propaganda": many Germans got rich at that period, there was an actual economic overturn of germany before the war, and Hitler played on the fact that many felt victims and humiliated by the versailles treaty after WWI. This was also consequences of some parts of the "nazi ideology".

Yelling "Nazi is bad", while absolutely true for the war, the racist ideology and the holocaust, is often used as nothing else than a tribal rally cry to make us feel better than what happen (often with good intention).

But it hides the whole complexity of the situation and individual experiences at that time, and the most important fact: same stuff like the holocaust and wars could re-happen in the same conditions. People can justify absolutely anything crazy against a perceived enemy as soon as they feel "victims" in a way and it happens every day.

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#497

> Additionally, a structure with the ownership of OpenAI would be put in place. Microsoft would entail a 49 percent stake while other investors would take over the other 49 percent. The remaining 2 percent will reportedly go to OpenAI’s non-profit parent firm. When OpenAI was funded as a non-profit in 2015, it raised $1 billion from investors that included YC Research. [1] Sam Altman was also the former president of…

OpenAI has a very, very complicated ownership structure. They explicitly call this a "capped profit corporation". What this means in practice is that they have a non-profit arm that owns a for-profit arm, and the for-profit arm has some vague and laughably high "profit cap" to meet. Personally, it sounds like a really sketchy way to work around privacy and copyright concerns. I.e. "we're just doing non-profit researc…

> and the for-profit arm has some vague and laughably high "profit cap" to meet.

What's a profit cap? I've never even heard of that.

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> to understand why 50%+ of the population was supporting the nazi when they came to power. Small correction: But they weren't! In the last free elections (1932) about 33% of the Germans supported the Nazi's, they managed to turn that into a good 90% or so by the time the war broke out 6.5 years later. So once in power they consolidated their large minority through an immense propaganda campaign (unlike anything seen…

It's not "just propaganda": many Germans got rich at that period, there was an actual economic overturn of germany before the war, and Hitler played on the fact that many felt victims and humiliated by the versailles treaty after WWI. This was also consequences of some parts of the "nazi ideology". Yelling "Nazi is bad", while absolutely true for the war, the racist ideology and the holocaust, is often used as nothin…

Absolutely, 'it can't happen here' is a complete delusion, it can happen here and in fact to a certain degree it is already happening here.

But from my reading without that massive propaganda engine, especially Hitlers radio broadcasts of Goebbels poison there would have been more Germans still thinking clearly.

I can't recommend this book enough for a - chilling - insight into the runup to World War II and how the propaganda engine set the stage for what followed:

https://www.amazon.com/Nazi-Conscience-Claudia-Koonz/dp/0674...

It is especially sobering when you realize how much of that parallels developments today.

Post reply on HN