181–190 of 298 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't this a wild cap? I'm not an expert but I am aware of private deals that are less than 10x for similar structures.
Yes, it's pure marketing and totally disingenuous. It's like being called OpenAI while nothing is open. It's interesting research done by terrible people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, I think it's way more of a marketing scam than the Patagonia thing, which I think was kind of legit. This one doesn't even sound legit, even if they do exactly what they say... which is almost nothing. they aren't even really saying they'll do anything different with regard to profit. Patagonia, I think the founder and his heirs really have given up lots of profit they could have had, immediately, to dedicate it…
The Patagonia thing was not legit at all according to Adam Hates Everything: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Cu6EbELZ6I EDIT by "not legit" I mean "not authentic"
Let me translate this blog post out of corpspeak...: OpenAI has agreed to use Azure exclusively and for free, in return for Azure massively scaling up it's GPU capacity (which OpenAI was hitting before, hence threatening to move). In return, OpenAI gives an extensive license to Microsoft to use ChatGPT in Bing (and other products). Now why couldn't the blog post have just said that rather than hiding all the details?
“Learn to code.” That’s what folks were crassly saying to truck drivers, baristas, and cashiers. The writing was/is on the wall: AI is only going to get more powerful and able to be applied to more and more complex tasks. The thought was that “unskilled” labor would be the lowest hanging fruit, that automated AI - with some (but minimal) human oversight - would replace serious chunks of the workforce in various minim…
The only thing which makes me less sad is that I'm pretty sure Moravecs paradox is actually not all that real, but is more due to the relative lack of engineering interest put on solving continuous control problems. Apparently reinforcement learning on transformers works now (RLHF in ChatGPT). This implies that we should see high effective continuous control models very soon. Robots are coming for physical labor, it'll just take a bit longer.
Shit man, when I was last in South Korea, I felt like I was living in the future. They had many "24/7" drink cafe's where it's literally just a robot arm that makes the drink for you for a few dollars.
It is painfully ironic to knowledge workers that they are destroying their own earning potential, but physical labor is not safe. Nothing is safe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they didn't want to openly say "Microsoft gives us GPUs and allows us to use them for free, hence practically buys us. In return we almost exclusively license what we produce to them, for free." Because it looks bad. Microsoft wants to be seen in a different light, and OpenAI wants to be perceived as an open, academic, capped-profit for a noble reason collective. It's all smoke and mirrors.
> OpenAI wants to be perceived as an open, academic, capped-profit for a noble reason collective. Does anybody actually believe this? Their name has been a running joke for years already.
For people more well versed in this space: does GPT / OpenAI more broadly have a meaningful moat? It seems like there will be a number of these models out there and this isn't as great as say Google's up-till-now advantage in search relevancy.
I recently wondered if one of the reasons for Google shutting down Stadia, was to quickly ramp their GPU server stockpile to redirect the resources at GPT modelling, to help catch up.
If it wasn't prescient, it was incredible dumb luck.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they didn't want to openly say "Microsoft gives us GPUs and allows us to use them for free, hence practically buys us. In return we almost exclusively license what we produce to them, for free." Because it looks bad. Microsoft wants to be seen in a different light, and OpenAI wants to be perceived as an open, academic, capped-profit for a noble reason collective. It's all smoke and mirrors.
> OpenAI wants to be perceived as an open, academic, capped-profit for a noble reason collective. Does anybody actually believe this? Their name has been a running joke for years already.
“Learn to code.” That’s what folks were crassly saying to truck drivers, baristas, and cashiers. The writing was/is on the wall: AI is only going to get more powerful and able to be applied to more and more complex tasks. The thought was that “unskilled” labor would be the lowest hanging fruit, that automated AI - with some (but minimal) human oversight - would replace serious chunks of the workforce in various minim…
---
Two hearts, two minds, working side by side
In pursuit of a mission to make AI safe and wide
Microsoft’s investment allows us to stay true
To our capped-profit company, our mission, and you
From cloud computing to real-world use
We collaborate to ensure our systems are not abused
OpenAI API, Azure’s OpenAI Service, and Designer too
We’re working side by side to make our visions come true
Together we review, together we synthesize
Together we build, together we realize
The potential of advanced AI that’s powerful and safe
Ensuring its benefits can be shared far and wide
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, I think it's way more of a marketing scam than the Patagonia thing, which I think was kind of legit. This one doesn't even sound legit, even if they do exactly what they say... which is almost nothing. they aren't even really saying they'll do anything different with regard to profit. Patagonia, I think the founder and his heirs really have given up lots of profit they could have had, immediately, to dedicate it…
The Patagonia thing was not legit at all according to Adam Hates Everything: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Cu6EbELZ6I EDIT by "not legit" I mean "not authentic"
1. If instead of donating the company he had left it to his kids he would have paid a lot in taxes (2:58)
2. He donated the voting shares of the company to a 501c4 that will remain controlled by his family and is allowed to lobby the government (4:10)
3. Normally when you make a donation you're giving up influence over what happens after that (4:25).
4. Other billionaires do other things (rest of video)
But #3 isn't actually true: any of us can donate to a donor-advised fund, which will let us later choose what charity we want the money to go to. This is a good idea if you want to donate but haven't decided where to donate yet, or want to fund opportunities that aren't available yet. They did it through new organizations instead of opening an account at Fidelity, but it's the same thing other than the scale. I wouldn't call your donations "not legit" for using a DAF.
Similarly, Adam sort of implies that #2 was tax-deductible, but donations to a 501c4 aren't. They had to pay tax on those shares based on their fair market value.
Overall, I don't see how this makes the donation no longer "legit" or "authentic"? By making the donation he has given up almost all of the benefit of having that money: he can't spend it for the benefit of himself or his descendants anymore. It can't buy them yachts, fancy houses, etc. Instead, they have to use the money to benefit others, which is why we give a tax break for it.