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

OpenAI is now everything it promised not to be: closed-source and for-profit

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 595 posts

Re: OpenAI is now everything it promised not to be: closed-source and for-profit

#391

Post by pixl97 »

buddhistdude wrote: post #356
Filligree wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last year the output was poor. The year before then, GPT essentially couldn't write code at all... You're not wrong about its quality right now, but let's look at the slope as well.

on the other hand, gpt-3 was trained on a data set that contains all of the internet already. A big Limitation seems to be that it can only work with problems that it has already seen

I mean a huge amount of code I see is stuff like "get something from API, do this, and pass to API/SQL" so I'm assuming a lot of that could be automated.

Re: OpenAI is now everything it promised not to be: closed-source and for-profit

#392

Post by rqtwteye »

I don't know much about AI development but does OpenAI really have some secret sauce? Aren't the algorithms mostly public and OpenAI's main advantage was to have enough money to build something? Won't other companies do the same too, just a little later?

I feel people like Altman will lose interest once they have sold OpenAI for big money.

Re: OpenAI is now everything it promised not to be: closed-source and for-profit

#393

Post by JohnFen »

buddhistdude wrote: post #356
Filligree wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last year the output was poor. The year before then, GPT essentially couldn't write code at all... You're not wrong about its quality right now, but let's look at the slope as well.

on the other hand, gpt-3 was trained on a data set that contains all of the internet already. A big Limitation seems to be that it can only work with problems that it has already seen

> on the other hand, gpt-3 was trained on a data set that contains all of the internet already

This fact has made me cease to put new things on the internet entirely. I want no part of this, and while my "contribution" is infinitesimally small, it's more than I want to contribute.

Re: OpenAI is now everything it promised not to be: closed-source and for-profit

#394

Post by Sargos »

mclightning wrote: post #243
throwaway4aday wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you expand your timeline a little bit you'll reach a spot where the computers, equipment and comms necessary to create a computer network were highly centralized and only run by large corporations and institutions. How many times do we need to see this pattern for it to be obvious?

History does NOT NECESSARILY repeat itself.

But it is happening in this case so no need for the pithy quote

Re: OpenAI is now everything it promised not to be: closed-source and for-profit

#395

Post by theboywho »

Would things have been different in the success of OpenAI if from the start the company was closed-source and for-profit ? If the answer is no, then does it really matter ? The article makes it seem like if OpenAI owes its success to the initial promise.

Re: OpenAI is now everything it promised not to be: closed-source and for-profit

#396

Post by jay_kyburz »

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #361
Julesman wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Among all the accepted threats to humanity's future, AI is one of the least founded at this point. We all grew up with this cautionary fiction. But unless you know something everyone else doesn't, the near term existential threat of AI is relatively low.

What strong evidence of existential threat are you expecting to see before it's already too late to avoid catastrophe?

Existential threat is a bit hyperbolic. Worst case scenario, lots of people might lose their jobs, and some will go hungry as we restructure our economy.

War with Russia is literally an existential threat.

Re: OpenAI is now everything it promised not to be: closed-source and for-profit

#397

Post by pixl97 »

jasonjmcghee wrote: post #317
hyperthesis wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if they have an internal ChatGPTzero , training and reprogramming itself, iterating at inhuman speed? A headstart in an exponential is a moat. It surely will have huge blindspots (and people do too), but perhaps it will be good enough for self-improvement... or will be soon.

It's a fundamentally different problem. AlphaZero (DeepMind) was able to be trained this way because it was setup with an explicit reward function and end condition. Competitive self-play needs a reward function. It can't just "self-improve towards general intelligence". What's the fitness function of intelligence?

Actually you are stating 2 different problems at the same time.

A lot of intelligence is based around "Don't die, also, have babies". Well AI doesn't have that issue as long as it produces a good enough answer we'll keep the power flowing to it.

The bigger issue, and one that is likely far more dangerous, is "Ok, what if it could learn like this". You've created super intelligence with access to huge amounts of global information and is pretty much immortal unless humans decide to pull the plug. The expected alignment of your superintelligent machine is to design a scenario where we cannot unplug the AI without suffering some loss (monetary is always a good one, rich people never like to lose money and will let an AI burn the earth first).

The alignment issue on a potential superintelligence is, I don't believe, a solvable problem. Getting people not to be betraying bastards is hard enough at standard intelligence levels, having a thing that could potentially be way smarter and connected to way more data is not going to be controllable in any form or fashion.

Re: OpenAI is now everything it promised not to be: closed-source and for-profit

#398

Post by Loughla »

camillomiller wrote: post #357
IAmNotACellist wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is nice to see normies noticing and caring, but the article leaves out some details that obscure comments still stubbornly bring up: like Musk founded it as a 501(c)(3) and put Altman in charge, and only once he had to leave with conflicts of interest Altman founded "OpenAI LP," the for-profit workaround so they didn't have to obey those pesky charity rules. That's when they stopped releasing models and weights, a…

People keep forgetting we're talking about Sam Altman, someone who believed that scanning the world's population retinas in exchange for some crappy digital coin was a great idea and not a creepy spinoff of a shoddy sci-fi novel.

Oh wow. I forgot that was even a thing. Is that project dead? I assume it is, but would love to be surprised that it still exists, just for the novelty of the entire thing.

Re: OpenAI is now everything it promised not to be: closed-source and for-profit

#399

Post by ynx »

jrm4 wrote: post #337
teekert wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? I feel like they'll go the way of Docker, but faster: Right now super hot, nice tools/API, great PR. But it's build on open and known foundations, soon GPTs will be commodity and then something easier/better FOSS will arise. It may take some time (2-3 years?) but this scenario seems most likely to me. Edit: Ah didn't get the "reference", perhaps indeed it will be the last of the tech companies ever indeed, at…

Are there any companies like Docker? They feel like such a Black Swan to me; namely -- "billions" + very useful + pretty much "not evil " at all. I literally can't think of any others. I don't mean "literally evil" of course, I personally acknowledge the need to make money et al, but I mean it even seems like your most Stallman-esque types wouldn't have too much of a problem with Docker?

While I have no problem with Docker, it probably is worth noting that their entire product is based on a decade and a half of Google engineering invested into the Linux kernel (cgroups).

Not that that demeans or devalues Docker, but it contextualizes its existence as an offshoot of a Google project that aimed to make it possible (and did, but only internally)

Re: OpenAI is now everything it promised not to be: closed-source and for-profit

#400

Post by jay_kyburz »

Filligree wrote: post #344
teekert wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have ChatGPT make up some code every now and then. It’s really nice and when not obscure usually directly useable. By you need to understand what it produces imo. I love that it also explains the code and I can follow code it generates and judge its quality and applicability. Isn’t that important?

Last year the output was poor. The year before then, GPT essentially couldn't write code at all... You're not wrong about its quality right now, but let's look at the slope as well.

The whole model is wrong. We don't need an AI that just spits out words that look like words its seen before. We need it to understand what its doing.

Midjourny needs to understand that its drawing a hand, that hands have 5 fingers.

Nobody will use Bing chat for anything important. Its like asking some some random guy on the train. He might know the answer, and if its not important then fine, but if it is important, say the success of your business, you're going to want talk to somebody who actually knows the answer.

Post reply on HN