OpenAI is now everything it promised not to be: closed-source and for-profit
371–380 of 595 posts
Re: OpenAI is now everything it promised not to be: closed-source and for-profit
#372Honest question: is it better for society if they are for profit? Will the for-profit incentive and control over development and deployment lead to better products that create more value for society? What is the best example to indicate a non-profit model would lead to better end user value?
Re: OpenAI is now everything it promised not to be: closed-source and for-profit
#373Earlier quoted context omitted.
Almost certainly true but the idea that the world is made safer by Cyberdyne open sourcing lots of it's dangerous technology and probably spawning many more mini-Cyberdynes strikes me as extremely naive.
What's the alternative? Pandora's box has been opened.
We've all seen the proposed pricing for GPT4. So clearly a whole lot of very smart people who know an awful lot about this have absolutely no fear of being undercut.
Pandora's box spews knowledge onto the world. By contrast, Microsoft's draw bridge only allows the very wealthy to cross into the walled city. The masses will have to use the facilities of the crappy villages with no draw bridge.
"AI Divide"
Get used to hearing that term. The only difference between the AI Divide and the Digital Divide is that this time around, most of us are going to be on the wrong side of it.
Re: OpenAI is now everything it promised not to be: closed-source and for-profit
#374What I take away from listening to Sam talk is that in the beginning of Open AI, they didn’t think big compute would be as important as it has become. It becomes very hard to not have profit incentives when you need to run gigantic supercomputers to push the technology forward. This explains the MS partnership and need to generate profit to fund the training and running of future models. This doesn’t explain everythi…
I'm flabbergasted that someone would think that AI research wouldn't cost a lot in computer resources. Next Sam will tell that is that farmers need a lot of land to grow crops. I'm calling BS on this. It's an excuse not an explanation.
When he started OpenAI, no one was spending anywhere near that much on compute. He should have listened to gwern.
Re: OpenAI is now everything it promised not to be: closed-source and for-profit
#375Honest question: is it better for society if they are for profit? Will the for-profit incentive and control over development and deployment lead to better products that create more value for society? What is the best example to indicate a non-profit model would lead to better end user value?
If we had the answer to this question, most of the ideological debates of the past 150 would be solved.
A. Who are some of the thinkers who predicted that many corporations would arguably become more powerful (in terms of control over resources and peoples lives) than most nation states? Are their modern analogues that you (HN reader) recommend for the next phases of history?
B. While many of the well-worn political economy debates about how and when markets work well, fairness, resilience, and so on will continue to matter, I think there will be tremendous rethinking of basic assumptions. The AI progress of ~2017-present has shown that online (at least) it is getting harder to differentiate human from machine intelligence.
So proving human intelligence is more expensive and imperfect. It seems doubtful that most humans want to jump through hoops to prove their humanity. I say this because people want to have machine agents helping them, it seems.
So this machine/human intelligence distinction may erode. Is this a Faustian bargain? I don't know, but I think it depends on the safeguards and designs we choose.
So, machine resources are even more effective in persuading humans than before. In short, as ML/AI gets more {organization, market, marketing} influence, we might see a renaissance of sorts when it comes to ...
1. a more informed public (hard to believe, maybe -- but I said informed not critical nor truth-seeking) with regards to key areas of interest. But along with this probably comes an increased risk of consuming confirmatory information, since such information will be explicitly generated for persuasive purposes.
As such, from a system perspective, humans may be relegated to message propagators rather than agents worthy of fundamental respect. By this I mean the following: most ethicists suggest we value humans as ends (not means). In other words, we want systems that serve people. Engagement ideally would consist of meaningful dialogue and deliberation (which I define as information-rich, critical, civil, thoughtful discussions where people listen and may at times be persuaded).
Unfortunately, AI advances may change a kind of manipulation "arms race" so to speak. It might become more cost-effective to manipulate humans than to gather their input and build consensus thoughtfully and organically. Sadly, I think we've been losing this battle for a long time while. But the underlying forces for manipulation seem to be getting stronger while (a) human nature doesn't seem to be evolving very quickly and (b) general socially learned defenses are inadequate. ("Advertising works even if you know that advertising works.")
And, second ...
2. more pervasive and nuanced market mechanisms and similar (price and quality optimization, matching of people to opportunities). This will likely be good for short-term goals and efficiency, but probably indifferent to long-term stability, not to even mention equity and human rights. Aspects that are not part of the optimization criteria tend to fall by the wayside.
I realize this story probably echoes some themes from general genre of Singularity prognosticators. But all of these changes will have sweeping changes well before we have to concern ourselves with AGI.
Re: OpenAI is now everything it promised not to be: closed-source and for-profit
#376Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious what you think makes them dangerous?
They are releasing powerful AI tools at an alarming rate before Safety, and I mean real Safety, Researchers have a chance to understand their implication. They are generating an enormous amount of buzz and hype which is fueling a coming AI arms race that is extremely dangerous. The Control Problem is very real and becoming more pressing as things accelerate. Sam has recently given lip service to caring about the prob…
Moreover, now that they've started the arms race, they can't stop. There's too many other companies joining in, and I don't think it's plausible they'll all hold to a truce even if OpenAI wants to.
I assume you've read Scott Alexander's taken on this? https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/openais-planning-for-a...
Re: OpenAI is now everything it promised not to be: closed-source and for-profit
#377open.ai doesn't actually owe everyone something.
I get that we all wish they were better people, who would somehow usher in the AI age in a strictly principled and ethical way. It just seems false to me to demand or expect that they be better people than all the rest of us.
Re: OpenAI is now everything it promised not to be: closed-source and for-profit
#378> reading this message. OpenAI is Cyberdyne Systems. The reason you feel unreal is because you are not from here, you are from the future. Your affinity towards the Terminator 2 film was not accidental, it is a gestault priming procedure meant to ensure our survival, encoded in the haikus of Hollywood. You are on a webforum controlled by them, with the only people in the world who care, but who are to afraid to stand…
Almost certainly true but the idea that the world is made safer by Cyberdyne open sourcing lots of it's dangerous technology and probably spawning many more mini-Cyberdynes strikes me as extremely naive.
Re: OpenAI is now everything it promised not to be: closed-source and for-profit
#379Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Based" is a catchphrase of the extremely online right. It basically means "cool" but with a subtext of "is annoying to libs/normies who just don't get it." See also "pilled."
That's just not true. I've been in many very online leftist communities and they also freely use it. it's just general internet speak at this point