71–80 of 190 posts
> Riding with Altman, I can almost hear the ringing, ambiguous chord that opens “A Hard Day’s Night”—introducing the future. Last November, when OpenAI let loose its monster hit, ChatGPT, it triggered a tech explosion not seen since the internet burst into our lives. Suddenly the Turing test was history, search engines were endangered species, and no college essay could ever be trusted. No job was safe. No scientific…
> Riding with Altman, I can almost hear the ringing, ambiguous chord that opens “A Hard Day’s Night”—introducing the future. Last November, when OpenAI let loose its monster hit, ChatGPT, it triggered a tech explosion not seen since the internet burst into our lives. Suddenly the Turing test was history, search engines were endangered species, and no college essay could ever be trusted. No job was safe. No scientific…
Saying that ChatGPT sucks after trying only the free version is like saying that pizza sucks after trying only the frozen pizza because you don't want to spend $20 on a pizza in a good Italian restaurant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Definitely, but it is not our only problem. We don't get those lucrative internships and neither do we get the boatloads of startup capital. It's all caused by the same risk averse mentality, though.
It's caused by "a business that loses billions of dollars a year for over a decade isn't a sustainable business" mentality. The US is the exact opposite. Even OpenAI, however amazing it is, is not a business (yet?). It's a money sink.
> What OpenAI really wants 1. Get lots of users; 2. monetize everything; 3. go public; 4. sell all shares and get super rich?
It's fairly striking how okay it is to simply paint someone with power in any corner you please. You can basically make any claim you want, and be just fine with it, societally. I also notice, how the effortlessness with which it is done increasingly provides a solid estimate for how lame the painters are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lol I did always wonder how Netflix qualified for FAANG but little ol' Microsoft didn't.
FAANG was coined by Jim Cramer, a stock pundit. It was the five biggest tech earners that year. Microsoft was flat which is why it wasn't there, while Netflix was the single biggest gainer in the S&P500 that year. It has nothing to do with tech, salary, talent, or anything like it. It's purely based on stock growth in 2012/2013.
How the turn tables
> Riding with Altman, I can almost hear the ringing, ambiguous chord that opens “A Hard Day’s Night”—introducing the future. Last November, when OpenAI let loose its monster hit, ChatGPT, it triggered a tech explosion not seen since the internet burst into our lives. Suddenly the Turing test was history, search engines were endangered species, and no college essay could ever be trusted. No job was safe. No scientific…
Bing Chat, which uses GPT-4, is free.
In this thread, people accuse Sam Altman of pursuing purely financial gain while he holds no equity in OpenAI.
In this thread, people accuse Sam Altman of pursuing purely financial gain while he holds no equity in OpenAI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They all have crazy CVs. If you're really talented in the US you can get very far on talent alone. If he was in Germany he's be a Ph.d or Postdoc toiling in some outdated research field that nobody cares about. The CTO has an even crazier CV. Born in the poorest European country, BSc at Dartmond (is that considered a good uni? idk), internship at GS, a stint at Tesla, couple of startups and hits gold with OpenAi. A B…
> If you're really talented in the US you can get very far on talent alone While this seems true, I wonder how much selection bias is involved here. I mean, we wouldn't know about talented people that kept failing, right? Edit: since they failed, they must be dumb, right? No matter how many PhDs they have. (I am being sarcastic, ofc)