321–330 of 518 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, I get that, but to handle a disagreement over money in such a consequential fashion just doesn't make sense to me. They must have understood that to arrive in a position where they have to fire the CEO with little warning is going to have profound consequences, perhaps even existential ones.
AGI is existential. That's the whole point, I think. If they can get to AGI, then building an LLM app store is such a distraction along the path that any reasonable person would look back and laugh at how cute an idea it was, despite how big or profitable it feels today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In other words, if SamA did it once, would $50 billion in funding enable him do it a 2nd time?
Well to be considered a genius in the ranks of Steve Jobs, you need to succeed more than once. If he can't do it a second time, then he'd be known as the guy who fails upward.
Ousting sama and gdb over something as petty as a simple strategy disagreement is totally unprofessional. sama got accused of serious misconduct. Even if he was too eager to commercialize OpenAIs tech that doesn't come close to justifying this circus act.
This is not petty, it’s the integral mission of the company, the reason it was founded, the reason it got investors and the reason that many of the most brilliant scientists in the world work there. They started as a non-profit ffs.
My question is: what was stopping both parties here from pursuing parallel paths? — have the non-profit/research oriented arm continue to focus on solving AGI, backed by the funds raised on from their LLM offerings? Were potential roadmaps really that divergent?
I had always assumed this was their internal understanding up until now, since at least the introduction of ChatGPT subscriptions.
Ilya is the center of Open AI. Everyone else is dispensable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s the funny thing isn’t it? Hinton, Bengio, and Sutskever, chief scientist of the tech behind OpenAI, all have strong opinions one way, but HN armchair experts handwave it away as fear mongering. Reminds me of climate change deniers. People just viscerally hate staring down upcoming disasters.
Not surprising when you consider the volume of posts on GPT threads hand-wringing about "free speech" because the chatbot won't use slurs.
You can try framing it as some sort of "bad racists" versus the good and virtuous gatekeepers, but the reality is that it's a bunch of nerds with sometimes super insane beliefs (the SF AI field is full of effective altruists who think AI is the most important issue in the world and weirdos in general) that will have an oversized control on what can and can't be thought. It's just good old white saviorism but worse.
Again, just saying "stop caring about muh freeze peach!!" just doesn't work coming from one of the most privileged groups in the entire world (AI techbros and their entourage). Not when it's such a crucial new technology
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry. Robust research says no. Remember, people thought Eliza was AGI too. https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.03762 If it was really AGI, there won't even be ambiguity and room for comments like mine.
As if most humans would do any better on those exercises. This thing is two years old . Be patient.
> As if most humans would do any better on those exercises.
Thats not the point. If you claim you have a machine that can fly, you can't get around a proof of that by saying "mOsT hUmAns cAnt fly" so therefore this machine not flying is irrelevant.
This thing either objectively reasons or not. It is irrelevant how well humans do on those tests.
> This thing is two years old. Be patient.
Nobody is cutting off the future. We are debating the current technology. AI has been around for 70 years. Just open any history book on AI.
At various points from 1950, the gullible mass claimed AGI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
AGI is about definitions. By many definitions, it’s already here. Hence MSR’s “sparks of AGI” paper and Eric Schmidt’s article in Noema. But by the definition “as good or better than humans at all things”, it fails.
Defining AGI is more than just semantics. The generally accepted definition is that it must be able to complete most cognitive tasks as well as an average human. Otherwise we could as well claim that ELIZA was AGI, which would obviously be ridiculous.
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