271–280 of 518 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if sama and gdb raised $10B by early 2024, all of the GPU production capacity is already allocated years out. They'd have to buy some other company's GPUs at insane markups. And that's only on the hardware side.
Jensen will take Sam's calls in a heartbeat and personally ensure he has what he needs.
What has me scratching my head is the fact that Altman has been on a world tour preaching the need for safety in AI. Many people here believed that this proselytizing was in part an attempt to generate regulatory capture. But given what's happening now, I wonder how much Altman's rhetoric served the purpose of maintaining a good relationship with Sutskever. Given that Altman was pushing the AI safety narrative public…
They did compromise. The creation of the for-profit and Sam being brought in WAS the compromise. Sam eventually decided that was inconvenient for him, so he stopped abiding by it, because at the end of the day he is just another greedy VC guy and when push came to shove he chose the money, not OpenAI. And this is the result.
Sam is not the good guy in this story. Maybe there are no good guys; that's a totally reasonable take. But, the OpenAI nonprofit has a mission, and blowing billions developing LLM app stores, training even more expensive giga-models, and lobotomizing whatever intelligence the LLMs have to make Congress happy, feels to me less-good than "having values and sticking too them". You can disagree with OpenAI's mission; but you can't say that it hasn't been printed in absolutely plain-as-day text on their website.
I know the HN crows idolizes people like pg and sama, but so many people appear to not even know who Ilya Sutskever is makes me think somehow this isn't "hacker" news anymore. Obviously sama is a very productive individual, but I would think obviously a research lab would have to keep one of the princes of deep learning at all costs. Somewhat reminds me of when John Romero got ousted by John Carmack at id - if you ar…
The salesmen always take the credit. If you see someone getting all the credit... 9 times out of 10 they are the salesman not the engineer or brains that actually built the thing. Add to that the hero worship for celebrity in our current culture and there you go.
Respecting and admiring someone for their achievements is one thing but blindly following successful people sounds like the antithesis of what a "hacker" is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, what do you mean by "unknown -to-anyone"? Ilya is a co-founder of OpenAI, the Chief Scientist, and one of the best known AI researchers in the field. He has also been touring with Sam Altman at public events, and getting highlights such as this one recently: https://youtu.be/9iqn1HhFJ6c
Altman is virtually a household name. Relative to that - Ilya is unknown.
I mean, anecdotally, most non-tech friends and family I know probably have heard of ChatGPT, but they don't know any of the founders or leadership team at OpenAI.
On the other hand, since I work in the field, all of my AI research friends/colleagues would know Ilya's work, and probably think of Sam more as a business guy.
In that sense, as far as attracting and maintaining AI researcher talent, I think it's arguable that people would prefer Ilya to Sam.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
authentication means finding a 2nd source. This reddit comment could be primary, armed with that it's not hard for Kara to find somebody inside to say "yes, accurate." That is real journalism.
Not according to Kara Swisher it isn't. https://x.com/maggienyt/status/1578074773174771712?s=46&t=k_... I know it's convenient to dUnK on journalism these days but this is Kara Fucking Swisher. Her entire reputation is on the line if she gets these little things wrong. And she has a hell of a reputation
Earlier quoted context omitted.
??? Source?
Kara's reporting on motive: https://twitter.com/karaswisher/status/1725678074333635028?t... Kara's reporting on who is involved: https://twitter.com/karaswisher/status/1725702501435941294?t... Confirmation of a lot of Kara's reporting by Ilya himself: https://twitter.com/karaswisher/status/1725717129318560075?t... Ilya felt that Sam was taking the company too far in the direction of profit seeking, more than was nece…
The only thing that is real is the PR from OpenAI and the "candid" line is quite ominous.
sama brought the company to where it is today, you don't kick out someone that way just because of misaligned interests.
I'm on the side that thinks that sama screwed up badly, putting OpenAI in a (big?) pickle and breaking ties with him asap is how they're trying to cover their ass.
The intense support for Altman and negativity towards the person who, uh, actually made the technology says a lot about the direction this community has taken.
Sutskever: "You can call it (a coup), and I can understand why you chose this word, but I disagree with this. This was the board doing its duty to the mission of the nonprofit, which is to make sure that OpenAI builds AGI that benefits all of humanity." Scoop: theinformation.com https://twitter.com/GaryMarcus/status/1725707548106580255
The funny thing is that so far OpenAI has made zero demonstrable progress toward building a true AGI. ChatGPT is an extraordinary technical accomplishment and useful for many things, but there is no evidence that scaling up that approach will get to AGI. At least a few more major breakthroughs will probably be needed.
I think it’s also fair Sam starts something new with a for profit focus of the get-go.
Sam wanted to commercialize stuff to shoot for revenue. Ilya wants to keep pushing for gpt 4.5 and beyond, to hell with the revenue. Ilya won the argument, Sam out. Hell yeah. It's not safetyism vs accelerationism. It's commercialization vs innovation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GPT 4 is not remotely unconvincing. It is clearly more intelligent than the average human, and is able to reason in the exact same way as humans. If you provide the steps to reason through any concecpt, it is able to understand at human capability. GPT 4 is clearly AGI. All of the GPTs have shown general intelligence, but GPT 4 is human-level intelligence.
The only thing GPT 4 is missing is the ability to recognize it needs to ask more questions before it jumps into a problem. When you compare it to an entry level data entry role, it's absolutely AGI. You loosely tell it what it needs to do, step-by-step, and it does it.
I don't think LLMs have really demonstrated anything interesting around generalized intelligence, which although a fairly abstract concept, can be thought of as being able to solve truly novel problems outside their training corpora. I suspect there still needs to be a fair amount of work improving both the model design itself, the training data, and even the mental model of ML researchers, before we have systems that can truly reason in a way that demonstrates their generalized intelligence.