Live data from Hacker News

The Fallout from the Weirdness at OpenAI

economist.com

81–90 of 91 posts

Re: The Fallout from the Weirdness at OpenAI

#81
post #3

Why do I get a feeling we are going to see an explosion of secular cults that have weird beliefs in AI and worship AGI?

Didn't Anthony Levandowski already try that? Thing is, it doesn't work. The primary purpose of religion is to tackle questions that are metaphysical in nature; to provide an explanation for the deep mysteries of life. To most believers, God isn't a comic book character that's worshipped solely because he is powerful -- He is worshipped as the first mover, the alpha and omega, beyond all constraint -- and the mere fac…

People worshiped Pharaohs and Caesars as gods for thousands of years.

The idea of the God as something outside existence is recent history. Humans are hardwired to worship kings and prophets as gods. AI will be no different, probably a lot more convincing even.

Re: The Fallout from the Weirdness at OpenAI

#82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't Anthony Levandowski already try that? Thing is, it doesn't work. The primary purpose of religion is to tackle questions that are metaphysical in nature; to provide an explanation for the deep mysteries of life. To most believers, God isn't a comic book character that's worshipped solely because he is powerful -- He is worshipped as the first mover, the alpha and omega, beyond all constraint -- and the mere fac…

What if the AI was set to be the bridge between God and humanity? As a higher minded being, the AI certainly could connect with God in ways we couldn't and his Word would make scripture. At least that's how I'd frame it...

If you believe in Simulation theory, AI would be something like a fractal or a type of recursion in the simulation. It might not be “God” per-se but it might help us understand God. In the way building a simulated computer in Minecraft might help you understand the computer Minecraft is running on.

Re: The Fallout from the Weirdness at OpenAI

#83
post #21

Microsoft played the 5D chess so well they made it look seamless, like Kasparov playing 40 opponents simultaneously. 5 occurrences of "Microsoft" in the article body vs 9 "OpenAI". To make my point clear; this weirdness was definitely caused by the OpenAI board deviating from everybody's plans, including a member of the board themselves. From there, Microsoft strategically reacted to a black swan event. From MS's pov…

I mean arguably the event may have been triggered by microsofts manipulations.

I don't think Microsoft is audacious or competent enough to orchestrate a fictitious termination, that's a little too far fetched. The initial event _reeks_ of incompetence/AGI fear-mongering, not orchestration.

+24 hours - Nadella announcing the creation of an internal OpenAI and automatic employment offers to all OpenAI employees. Seems sensible. Microsoft's investment in OpenAI entitles them to 75% of all of OpenAI's net profit until they make their whole $13B investment back, not to mention retain ownership of 49% of OpenAI. Too much capital to play chess with, the division/auto-hire announcement still feels like it must have been done with a lot of hesitation and picking the least awful option, but what else? If the conclusion is that OpenAI's board is prepared to sabotage the company -- and the exceptionally vague (=> bullshit) reasoning OpenAI published for his termination supports that conclusion -- there's no other option.

But +48-72 hours, this is perhaps when the "holy shit" moment happened -- Bing's lifelong irrelevance as a consumer product and sudden ascension to relevance as Google's defense in an extremely serious lawsuit, and at least Google organically beat the other search engines.

The Microsoft board realized hemorrhaging OpenAI, whilst also probably owning xx% of all H100's (arguably the defining competitive advantage of GPT-as-a-Service co's), would almost definitely lead to them being in Google's predicament years down the line. By then, the FTC will not care that the "trigger" all those years ago was a board that became frantic about AGI, with Microsoft merely rescuing a ship that self-sabotaged.

So the chess started here, Ctrl+Z'ing everything, the overtly outward displays of compassion, some genuine, some perhaps encouraged, and everyone - including Sam - is back on the same page that Microsoft needs to back off, but crucially it has to appear as a reunification stemming from within OpenAI.

It is precisely at this point, in this chain of events, that the opportunity emerges for a OpenAI board replacement, with Sam being firmly on it, that is in line with Microsofts deep (arguably trauma-laden) desire to finally be the dominant player in something other than desktop operating systems.

No source, I doubt there will ever be, but this speculation of events, to me, lines up most with the actions of the parties involved.

Re: The Fallout from the Weirdness at OpenAI

#84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>no one is particularly impressed with it If anyone has ever said anything cynical ever I think this beats it. Biology is amazing. >What are you hoping will be understood. Understanding is like the apparent horizon. The closer you get the further away you realize it is. There will always be more to understand, we will just reach a point where our little monkey minds are incapable of holding enough 'state' to grasp fo…

People say they are impressed, but it has no real quality to it, it's just a word. Actual wonder is gone by the time a person reaches adolescence. From there it's just cramming more facts in. The basis of understanding the physical world is already given: it's a mechanical process involving matter, energy and motion. What is so interesting about learning another variation of those? If you could build an AI to give us…

This is like deciding that we've already figured out that the celestial spheres are why the stars move in the way they do. Why bother to figure out any more?

Improvements to understanding always seem obvious after they're made and it always seema like you have a mostly complete worldview right up until you realize you don't. That's how it works.

If you can explain to me from base principles why the fine structure constant has the value it does, or why there is such a pronounced baryon asymmetry or any of the many big open questions in basic physics I will acquiesce the point.

Being ignorant of the big questions doesn't mean big questions don't exist, only that you don't know about them yet.

Re: The Fallout from the Weirdness at OpenAI

#85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't know what will happen with AGI, but we can pretty easily guess what will happen without it. I'd take that risk any day!

You can easily guess, the issue is with being correct...

We all hallucinate a little now and then...

Re: The Fallout from the Weirdness at OpenAI

#86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People say they are impressed, but it has no real quality to it, it's just a word. Actual wonder is gone by the time a person reaches adolescence. From there it's just cramming more facts in. The basis of understanding the physical world is already given: it's a mechanical process involving matter, energy and motion. What is so interesting about learning another variation of those? If you could build an AI to give us…

This is like deciding that we've already figured out that the celestial spheres are why the stars move in the way they do. Why bother to figure out any more? Improvements to understanding always seem obvious after they're made and it always seema like you have a mostly complete worldview right up until you realize you don't. That's how it works. If you can explain to me from base principles why the fine structure con…

I'm not saying everything is known. The question is, are there any questions we can ask that have a potential answer that will not be answered by a material, mechanical description. Because we already know what that entails. Can you conceive of an explanation of the fine structure constant or any other question in physics, or any other domain of science that doesn't have a material mechanical basis as the answer?

If not, then all the answers are variations on each other. To be fair, in some sense that project has already broken down. We have 'fields' in empty space, 'virtual' particles, correlation over distances where causation is not possible, and other things that, basically, are inconceivable.

Re: The Fallout from the Weirdness at OpenAI

#87
post #21

Microsoft played the 5D chess so well they made it look seamless, like Kasparov playing 40 opponents simultaneously. 5 occurrences of "Microsoft" in the article body vs 9 "OpenAI". To make my point clear; this weirdness was definitely caused by the OpenAI board deviating from everybody's plans, including a member of the board themselves. From there, Microsoft strategically reacted to a black swan event. From MS's pov…

Microsoft might have some experience with putting spin on 0days.

Re: The Fallout from the Weirdness at OpenAI

#88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man, that has been a dream since I was a kid: to see humanity create better gods. It would be really cool to see these machine gods evolve over time too, and scripture and morality along with them. A version controlled religion for future historians (AI, humans, or otherwise) to study!

I’m not sure the gods human being have made so far have done anything apart from persuade people to kill each other over scratchy bits of land. Whether feeling-less AGI will be better for us primates is very uncertain!

George Boole would disagree

Re: The Fallout from the Weirdness at OpenAI

#89

The fallout from this week will be world changing. IMO, concentration of power in the hands of ‘sama as OpenAI changes tack to full commercialisation can only be a bad thing. The prevailing feeling at work is that AI risk experts are about to have their day in the sun.

Power hasn't been concentrated.

They only sent a letter after Ilya signed it.

Power is distributed amongst Ilya, Brockman, Altman and the board. The other big player, which asserted itself quite plainly during this episode was ofc the team itself.

Altman is progressive, Brockman is center, Ilya is conservative and the board(should be) independent. Not sure where Mira Murati is at. Probably center with Brockman.

I'm guessing the team is highly diverse in loyalty, operating more like a family with a rather adorable coparenting arrangement than a corporation.

Seems overall everyone loves everyone. It's a high stakes mission that brought out some serious tension. All parties have strong feelings. Hell... I would.

If McKinsey was on track to sell armies of consultants for 20 bucks a month possibly as soon as the next 10 years... The stakes get high real quick.

Re: The Fallout from the Weirdness at OpenAI

#90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> its nft's all over again. could you explain how you make the connection? do you think AI is worthless?

This isn't the first person i've heard say something along these lines. usually something decrying the hype in AI. My own feeling is that its mental models: 'we have seen hype before, it was nothing, this is hype, so it must be nothing" But, to me it reminds me of when the internet took off in the mid to late 90s - people (usually older than me) would decry it as 'the latest fad' and play down the affect that this wo…

Internet is useful, glorified markov chains are amusing but besides saying funny things on IRC, don't really have much use.
Post reply on HN