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

OpenAI and Elon Musk

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 1001 posts

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#241

Post by cortesoft »

afarviral wrote: post #198
dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To some extent, they may be right that open sourcing AGI would lead to too much danger. That's clearly self-serving claptrap. It's a leveraging of a false depiction of what AGI will look like (no ones really knows, but it's going to be scary and out of control!) with so much gatekeeping and subsequent cash they can hardly stop salivating. No strong AI (there is no evidence AGI is even possible) is not going to be a…

That makes little intuitive sense to me. Help me understand why increasing the number of entities which possess a potential-weapon is beneficial for humanity? If the US had developed a nuclear armament and no other country had would that truly have been worse? What if Russia had beat the world to it first? Maybe I'll get there on my own if I keep following this reasoning. However there is nothing clear cut about it,…

Lots of people disagree on whether it is true or not, but basically the idea is mutually assured destruction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#242

Post by lovich »

enriquec wrote: post #208
ajisiekskaiek wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are advocating here for an unresolvable set of ethics, which just happens to be one that conveniently leaves abuse of AI on the table. You take as an axiom of your ethical system the absolute right to create and propagate in public these AI technologies regardless of any externalities and social pressures created. It is of course an ethical system primarily and exclusively interested in advancing the individual a…

[flagged]

I remember when my family collectively came together to cook a meal when I was a child, how this deprived me of the experience of learning to bootstrap civilization on my own.

Literally any time two people work together that’s dangerously close to collectivism as it’s not individuals working in their own. Down with the collectivists, every person should be an independent operator

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#243

Post by lmm »

bbor wrote: post #136
andsoitis wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> everyone should benefit from the fruits of AI after its built, but it's totally OK to not share the science... everyone... except scientists and the scientific community.

Well, the Manhattan project springs to mind. They truly thought they were laboring for the public good, and even if the government let them wouldn’t have wanted to publish their progress. Personally I find the comparison of this whole saga (deepmind -> google —> openai —> anthropic —-> mistral —-> ?) to the Manhattan project very enlightening, both of this project and our society. Instead of a centralized government…

> They truly thought they were laboring for the public good

Nah. They knew they were working for their side against the other guys, and were honest about that.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#244

Post by Jensson »

afarviral wrote: post #198
dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To some extent, they may be right that open sourcing AGI would lead to too much danger. That's clearly self-serving claptrap. It's a leveraging of a false depiction of what AGI will look like (no ones really knows, but it's going to be scary and out of control!) with so much gatekeeping and subsequent cash they can hardly stop salivating. No strong AI (there is no evidence AGI is even possible) is not going to be a…

That makes little intuitive sense to me. Help me understand why increasing the number of entities which possess a potential-weapon is beneficial for humanity? If the US had developed a nuclear armament and no other country had would that truly have been worse? What if Russia had beat the world to it first? Maybe I'll get there on my own if I keep following this reasoning. However there is nothing clear cut about it,…

> If the US had developed a nuclear armament and no other country had would that truly have been worse?

Yes, do you think it is a coincidence that nuclear weapons stopped being used in wars as soon as more than one power had them? People would clamor for nukes to be used to save their young soldiers lives if they didn't have to fear nuclear retaliation, you would see strong political pushes for nuclear usage in everyone of USA's wars.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#245

Post by usefulcat »

uncomputation wrote: post #70
Reubend wrote: post #13

Their evidence does a nice job of making Musk seem duplicitous, but it doesn't really refute any of his core assertions: they still have the appearance of abandoning their core mission to focus more on profits, even if they've elaborated a decent justification of why that's necessary to do. Or to put it more simply: here they explain why they had to betray their core mission. But they don't refute that they did betra…

> they don't refute that they did betray it They do. They say: > Elon understood the mission did not imply open-sourcing AGI. As Ilya told Elon: “As we get closer to building AI, it will make sense to start being less open. The Open in openAI means that everyone should benefit from the fruits of AI after its built, but it's totally OK to not share the science...” Whether you agree with this is a different matter but…

So.. "open" means "open at first, then not so much or not at all as we get closer to achieving AGI"?

As they become more successful, they (obviously) have a lot of motivation to not be "open" at all, and that's without even considering the so-called ethical arguments.

More generally, putting "open" in any name frequently ends up as a cheap marketing gimmick. If you end up going nowhere it doesn't matter, and if you're wildly successful (ahem) then it also won't matter whether or not you're de facto 'open' because success.

Maybe someone should start a betting pool on when (not if) they'll change their name.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#246

Post by globalvariablex »

>"Given both the competitive landscape and the safety implications of large-scale models like GPT-4, this report contains no further details about the architecture (including model size), hardware, training compute, dataset construction,training method, or similar."

I am not a fan of the "enjoy the fruits but not the science" statement they made in the blog. The quote above was from GPT-4's technical paper. I'll go the extra mile and steel man a counter-argument and say they're seeking a competitive advantage to secure more in investments so they can stick to their mission statements of making safe AGI, but I think we can all see where this line of thinking of is going further down the line. Building your stack around an academic research paper from a rival company then refusing to publish your contributions is terribly disappointing imo. I hope this won't be a trend that other companies participate in.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#247

Post by derwiki »

jjallen wrote: post #234

Everyone should leave OpenAI and form a new entity. Problem's solved. Key partners would resign the key contracts they have. Leave the whole “Open” part behind for good so we can stop talking reading and hearing about it.

It wasn’t everyone, but that’s sort of the Anthropic origin story

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#249

Post by cwilby »

I don't know what to say more than - I wish they'd calculated in KWh instead of $.

I really want to know that figure, but I'm left extrapolating.

I could _guess_ it's huge, but that's not the point.

> "Can we make a separate intelligence beside ourselves, damn the energy expenditure?"

Post reply on HN