Live data from Hacker News

Emmett Shear becomes interim OpenAI CEO as Altman talks break down

theverge.com

891–900 of 979 posts

Re: Emmett Shear becomes interim OpenAI CEO as Altman talks break down

#891
post #488

This will be an interesting test to see how fast you can bootstrap GPT-4 level performance with unlimited funds and talent that already has deep knowledge of the internals. With the initial adoption of ChatGPT alongside Copilot, OpenAI's data moat of crawled data & RLHF is pretty vast. And that's not leaving the walled garden of OpenAI. You can simulate a lot of this using other off-the-shelf LLMs (see Alpaca) but no…

Many of OpenAIs most talented people left to start Anthropic. They have billions in funding and have not yet got particularly close to GPT-4. I think that illustrates it will be a be a big uphill battle for any new entrant no matter how well funded or resourced.

Anthropic was formed for nearly the same reason Sam was fired. To slow the things down. OpenAI takes MS funding and Anthropic is formed. OpenAI pace goes a little above the comfort level of Ilya and Sam is fired. MS picks up Sam and will try to outpace openAI while openAI will put brakes on itself.

Re: Emmett Shear becomes interim OpenAI CEO as Altman talks break down

#892

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Azure-hosted versions are consistently behind the OpenAI versions. For example, the GPT4 128K-token model is unavailable, and the GPT-4V model is also unavailable.

This. Very frustrating. Why is Azure behind and when is the gpt-4-turbo version coming?

It's already available globally on Azure as of last week.

Re: Emmett Shear becomes interim OpenAI CEO as Altman talks break down

#893
post #592

Through all of this, no one has cogently explained why Altman leaving is such a big deal. Why would workers immediately quit their job when he has no other company, and does he even know who these workers are? Are these people that desperate to make a buck (or the prospect of big bucks)? It seems like half of the people working at the non-profit were not actually concerned about the mission but rather just waiting ou…

The new CEO, (Emmett, not Mura, who was CEO for two days I guess) has publicly stated on multiple occasions "we need to slow down from a 10 to a 1-2". Ilya is also in favor of dramatically "slowing down". That's who's left in this company, running it. In the field of AI, right now, "slowing down" is like deciding to stop the car and walk the track by foot in the middle of a Formula 1 race. It's like going backwards.…

Not trying to be snarky, but I'm guessing more like two months.

Re: Emmett Shear becomes interim OpenAI CEO as Altman talks break down

#894

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No he didn't fire Sam over AI safety concerns. That's completely made up by people in the twittersphere. The only thing we know is that the board said the reason was that he lied to the board. The guardian[1] reported that he was working on a new startup[1] and that staff had been told it was due to a breakdown in communication and not to do with anything regarding safety, security, malfeasance or a bunch of other th…

The Atlantic Article makes it pretty clear that the fast growth of the commercial business was giving Ilya too few resources and too little time to do the safety work he wanted to do: https://archive.ph/UjqmQ

I can buy that they fired him over a disagreement about strategy (ie are we going too fast/we are concentrating on the wrong things etc), because in general of course board members get fired if they can't work together on a common strategy. But the narrative that has taken over lots of places at the weekend is more along the lines of he got fired because they had created a sentient AI and Ilya was worried about it. That just makes no sense to me.

Additionally, no-one (not insiders at OpenAI and certainly not a journalist) other than people in those conversations actually knows what happened, and noone other than Ilya actually knows why he did what he did. Everyone else is relying on rumor and heresay. For sure the closer people are to the matter the more insight they are likely to have, but noone who wasn't in the room actually knows.

Re: Emmett Shear becomes interim OpenAI CEO as Altman talks break down

#895

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The actual message regarding Bayes' Theorem is that there is a correct way to respond to evidence in the first place. No, there isn't a correct way to do anything in the real world, only in logic problems. This would be well known if anyone had read philosophy; it's the failed program of logical positivism. (Also the failed 70s-ish AI programs of GOFAI.) The main reason it doesn't work is that you don't know what a…

> No, there isn't a correct way to do anything in the real world, only in logic problems. Agree to disagree? If there's one thing physics teaches us, it's that the real world is just math. I mean, re GOFAI, it's not like Transformers and DL are any less "logic problem" than Eurisko or Eliza were. Re counterfactuals, yes, the problem is uncomputable at the limit. That's not "unknown unknowns", that's just the problem…

> I mean, re GOFAI, it's not like Transformers and DL are any less "logic problem" than Eurisko or Eliza were.

Hmm, they're not a complete anything but they're pretty different as they're not discrete. That's how we can teach them undefinable things like writing styles. It seems like a good ingredient.

Personally I don't think you can create anything that's humanlike without being embodied in the world, which is mostly there to keep you honest and prevent you from mixing up your models (whatever they're made of) with reality. So that really limits how much "better" you can be.

> That's not "unknown unknowns", that's just the problem of induction.

This is the exact argument the page I linked discusses. (Or at least the whole book is.)

> However, it's not like there's any alternative system of knowledge that can do better.

So's this. It's true; no system of rationalism can be correct because the real world isn't discrete, and none are better than this one, but also this one isn't correct. So you should not start a religion based on it. (A religion meaning a principle you orient your life around that gives it unrealistically excessive meaning, aka the opposite of nihilism.)

> I mean, I do think that, yes. Got any argument against it other than "lol sci-fi"?

That's a great argument. The book I linked calls it "reasonableness". It's not a rational one though, so it's hard to use.

Example: if someone comes to you and tries to make you believe in Russell's teapot, you should ignore them even though they might be right.

Main "logical" issue with it though is that it seems to ignore that things cost money, like where the evil AI is going to get the compute credits/GPUs/power bills to run itself.

But a reasonable real world analog would be industrial equipment, which definitely can kill you but we more or less have under control. Or cars, which we don't really have under control and just ignore it when they kill people because we like them so much, but they don't self-replicate and do run out of gas. Or human babies, which are self-replicating intelligences that can't be aligned but so far don't end the world.

Re: Emmett Shear becomes interim OpenAI CEO as Altman talks break down

#896
post #757

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a big deal because he’s extremely charismatic and well connected and that matters much, much more for a tech company’s success than some programmers like to think.

I have watched him speak, and he doesn't seem charismatic at all. I remember hearing the same things about Sam Bankman-Fried and then going and watching his interviews and feeling the same. There is just a giant gap here where I simply do not get it, and I see no evidence that explains me not getting it is missing some key aspect of all this. This just seems like classic cargo cult, cult of personality, and following…

> I have watched him speak, and he doesn't seem charismatic at all. I remember hearing the same things about Sam Bankman-Fried and then going and watching his interviews and feeling the same.

Beside the argument that creshal brought up in a sibling comment that some people are more charismatic live and some are more charismatic through a camera:

In my observation, quite some programmers are much more immune to "charisma influence" (or rather: manipulation by charisma) than other people. For example, in the past someone sent me an old video of Elon Musk where in some TV show (I think) he explained how he wants to build a rocket to fly to the moon and the respective person claimed that this video makes you want Musk to succeed because of the confidence that Elon Musk shows. Well, this is not the impression that the video made on me ...

Re: Emmett Shear becomes interim OpenAI CEO as Altman talks break down

#897
post #836

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So having Altman's loyalists leave is probably exactly what Sutskever wants? Still, what do they actually want? It seems a bit overly dramatic for such an organisation.

This is very short and explains exactly what they want: https://openai.com/charter I think it's pretty obvious after reading it why people who were really committed to that Charter weren't happy with the direction that Sam was taking the company.

It doesn't sound obvious to me, can you clarify on what Sam was doing that went against the charter?

Re: Emmett Shear becomes interim OpenAI CEO as Altman talks break down

#898

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. Very frustrating. Why is Azure behind and when is the gpt-4-turbo version coming?

It's already available globally on Azure as of last week.

Okay you’re correct. Last week when I checked I only saw the Dall-E 3 public preview announcement. Now I checked and the Azure page is updated also with GPT-4 Turbo announcement. Very nice!

Re: Emmett Shear becomes interim OpenAI CEO as Altman talks break down

#899

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What am I missing here: Sam Altman has zero charisma or cool factor. Every talk I've seen him in, he comes off as lethargic and sluggish. I get zero sense of passion or rallying drive around the hype of AI from him. He's not an AI visionary. He's not a hype man. He simply "is", and just because he happens to have been the CEO he's been thrust into the spotlight, but there's literally nothing interesting about him.

What you are missing is his record of success and making the people under him rich. That's the kind of person people to work for. They want to make money, not to work for someone who looks good on camera.

Your comment was the first about sama's "charisma" where the puzzle pieces fit together. :-)

Re: Emmett Shear becomes interim OpenAI CEO as Altman talks break down

#900
post #592

Through all of this, no one has cogently explained why Altman leaving is such a big deal. Why would workers immediately quit their job when he has no other company, and does he even know who these workers are? Are these people that desperate to make a buck (or the prospect of big bucks)? It seems like half of the people working at the non-profit were not actually concerned about the mission but rather just waiting ou…

Jessica Livingston's tweet may give some idea:

>The reason I was a founding donor to OpenAI in 2015 was not because I was interested in AI, but because I believed in Sam. So I hope the board can get its act together and bring Sam and Greg back.

I guess other people joined for similar reasons.

As regards the 'strange and disturbing' support, personally I thought OpenAI was doing cool stuff and it was a shame to break it because of internal politics.

Post reply on HN