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

Ilya Sutskever "at the center" of Altman firing?

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 518 posts

Re: Ilya Sutskever "at the center" of Altman firing?

#471

Post by hello_moto »

capableweb wrote: post #435
MVissers wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both IMO. The first leads to attractong world-class talent that can do the second. Until you go off the rails and the second kicks you out it seems.

You don't think already starting with world-class talent (Sutskever, Karpathy, Zaremba and more being part of the founding team) lead to OpenAI being able to get more world-class talent, rather than world-class talent joining because of Altman?

Yeah. I don't care who Altman is cause he ain't the technical leader from a researcher perspective.

Altman is a CEO golden boy techbros.

Re: Ilya Sutskever "at the center" of Altman firing?

#472

Post by danaris »

machomaster wrote: post #428
lucubratory wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a problem in all of science, and Chinese research is quite good in measures like citations as well, not just quantity of papers.

Chinese papers are (with much higher probability) citing Chinese sources. It's a self-empowering cycle, which doesn't say anything about the quality.

This just in:

Researchers are vastly more likely to read, and therefore cite, papers in languages that they understand fluently.

Re: Ilya Sutskever "at the center" of Altman firing?

#473

Post by ShamelessC »

hello_moto wrote: post #468
dimal wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is u/Anxious_Bandicoot126? Is there any reason to think this is actually a person at OpenAI and not some random idiot on the internet? They have no comment history except on this issue. Seems like BS.

No comment history except on this issue... That's either 100% fishy or 100% insider. Either BS or person is insider, no in-between.

Is this sarcasm? The burden is on the person with the supposed claim to show they are trustworthy and reputable. What you're saying is basically "coin shows heads 50% of the time, therefore it's 50% chance they're an insider".

Re: Ilya Sutskever "at the center" of Altman firing?

#474

Post by ShamelessC »

clnq wrote: post #439
watwut wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mature, as in the opposite of ingenuous To tell it in an exaggerated way, maturity should not imply sociopathy or completely disregard for everything. Obviously I am referring here to Kottick situation. But, the definition where it is immature to tell the truth and mature to enable powerful bad players is wrong definition of maturity.

I respect your belief that maturity involves elevating morality above corporate sagacity. It is noble.

That comes across as pretty condescending. It's not like you have some sort of authoritative high ground about what does and doesn't constitute professionalism in the business world. It sounds to me that your version of professionalism is in line with what gets prescribed at your average mindless corporate human resources or public relations department. Which is fine, but there's zero proof that that is the correct way to do things, and it's actually naive on _your_ part to accept the status quo as is. And, as I said, incredibly condescending to assume it is somehow the "mature" point of view.

Re: Ilya Sutskever "at the center" of Altman firing?

#475

Post by aamoyg »

brigadier132 wrote: post #156
strikelaserclaw wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

he seems like a more credible source than random people with no real ml experience

Why do you believe "real ml experience" qualifies someone to speculate about the impact of what is currently science fiction technology on society?

Submarines were considered science fiction shortly prior to WWI, and then you got such crazy technological advancements, that battleships were obsolete by the time they were built. Well, submarines weren't science fiction anymore, and were used in unrestricted warfare.

Hope we don't do that with AI. Pretty sure our AGI is going to be similar to that seen in the Alien franchise of films-- it essentially emulates human higher order logic with key distinctions.

Re: Ilya Sutskever "at the center" of Altman firing?

#476

Post by matthewdgreen »

blovescoffee wrote: post #300
hilux wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Research from PRC (across all of science, not specific to AI) has a terrible reputation. They are rewarded for sheer quantity. You can easily find many articles discussing this phenomenon. So the volume of Chinese AI papers says little to nothing about their advancements in the field.

I regularly read really good papers that come out of China. For instance, there's great CV work out of China.

The two statements are compatible. It can be true that there is a core of really high quality research coming out of China, and also that there is a huge “long tail” of low-quality research that is probably motivated by badly-calibrated publication quantity metrics. The US seems to be slightly more limited in this because (possibly) we have a smaller population of researchers, but also because our government funding sources for research (places like the NSF) tend to have some peer review that cuts against this sort of metric.

Re: Ilya Sutskever "at the center" of Altman firing?

#477

Post by ShamelessC »

nradov wrote: post #329
dr_dshiv wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That "Sparks of AI" paper was total garbage, just complete nonsense and confirmation bias. 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.

> The generally accepted definition is that it must be able to complete most cognitive tasks as well as an average human.

That is a definition. It is not a generally accepted definition.

Re: Ilya Sutskever "at the center" of Altman firing?

#478

Post by aamoyg »

wmf wrote: post #193
hollerith wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That must be it because obviously no knowledgeable person could honestly come to believe that the technology is dangerous .

I think he's telling the truth about his beliefs. But if he always believed that AI is dangerous they should have never done the Microsoft deal.

Taking the Microsoft deal was incredibly smart. Microsoft acts as their shield and commercializes their technology (so that they do not need to worry about it) and in turn gives them nigh unlimited resources to innovate. Microsoft builds the products it wants, and OpenAI gets to innovate. This sort of investment for wealth generation is pretty close to ideal capitalism where people do not care about short term profit. I wouldn't be surprised if Satya Nadella orchestrated this, because it's OpenAI's role to innovate responsibly and Microsoft's job to sell to essentially fund their innovation. So wtf is Altman for?

Re: Ilya Sutskever "at the center" of Altman firing?

#479

Post by aamoyg »

adastra22 wrote: post #303
rirarobo wrote: post #102

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

Which has very little to do with OpenAI’s success. It’s not enough to make a new technology, as too many tech-focused entrepreneurs have found out. You have to find product-market fit, manage suppliers and customers, and negotiate deals.

That's what Microsoft was doing on their behalf.

Re: Ilya Sutskever "at the center" of Altman firing?

#480

Post by inglor_cz »

fsloth wrote: post #426
mlajtos wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

N9 was a work of art. Fuck Elop.

In general software seems to be really hard for hardware companies. This was the main reason for the downfall IMO. The things that make you succeed in hardware do not suffice, and are partly wrong in software. The N9 etc demonstrated there was enough talent for a plausible pivot. Was it business wise obvious this would have been the only and right choice?

I programmed for Symbian OS.

The dialect of C++ was pure hell, and the wanton diversity of products meant that there was no chance to get consistent UI over a chock-full of models whose selling potential was unknown in advance. Theoretically, there were standards such as Series 60. Practically, those were full of compatibility breaks and just weird idiosyncrasies.

Screen dimensions, available APIs, everything varied as if designed by a team of competing drunk sailors, and you could always plunge a week of work into fine-tuning your app for a platform that flopped. Unlike Apple, there just wasn't any software consistency. Some of the products were great, some were terrible, and all were subtly incompatible with one another.

Post reply on HN