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

261–270 of 1001 posts

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#261

Post by Zambyte »

lagt_t wrote: post #105
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…

Everytime they say LLMs are the path to AGI, I cringe a little.

1. AGI needs an interface to be useful.

2. Natural language is both a good and expected interface to AGI.

3. LLMs do a really good job at interfacing with natural language.

Which one(s) do you disagree with?

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#262

Post by FeepingCreature »

intended wrote: post #219
elif wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>they may be right that open sourcing AGI would lead to too much danger. I think this part is proving itself to be an understandable but false perspective. The hazard we are experiencing with LLM right now is not how freely accessible and powerfully truthy it's content is, but it is precisely the controls upon it which are trying to be injected by the large model operators which are generating mistrust and a poor und…

> but it is precisely the controls upon it which are trying to be injected by the large model operators which are generating mistrust and a poor understanding of what these models are useful for. Citation needed. Counterpoints: - LLMs were mistrusted well before anything recent. - More controls make LLMs more trustworthy for many people, not less. The Snafu at Goog suggests a need for improved controls, not 0 control…

Counter-counterpoint: absolutely nobody who has unguardrailed Stable Diffusion installed at home for private use has ever asked for more guardrails.

I'm just saying. :) Guardrails nowadays don't really focus on dangers (it's hard to see how an image generator could produce dangers!) so much as enforcing public societal norms.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#265

Post by m3kw9 »

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…

If the core mission is to advance and help humanity, then they determine by changing it to profit and making it closed will help that mission, then it is a valid decision

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#266

Post by FeepingCreature »

roody15 wrote: post #161
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…

“ To some extent, they may be right that open sourcing AGI would lead to too much danger.” I would argue the opposite. Keeping AGI behind a walled corporate garden could be the most dangerous situation imaginable.

The state is much better at peering into walled corporate gardens than personal basements.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#268

Post by intended »

lmm wrote: post #239
intended wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but it is precisely the controls upon it which are trying to be injected by the large model operators which are generating mistrust and a poor understanding of what these models are useful for. Citation needed. Counterpoints: - LLMs were mistrusted well before anything recent. - More controls make LLMs more trustworthy for many people, not less. The Snafu at Goog suggests a need for improved controls, not 0 control…

> More controls make LLMs more trustworthy for many people, not less. The Snafu at Goog suggests a need for improved controls, not 0 controls. To whom? And, as hard as this is to test, how sincerely? > The American culture wars are not global. (They have their own culture wars). Do people from places with different culture wars trust these American-culture-war-blinkered LLMs more or less than Americans do?

- To me, the teams I work with and everyone handling content moderation.

/ Rant /

Oh God please let these things be bottle necked. The job was already absurd, LLMs and GenAI are going to be just frikking amazing to deal with.

Spam and manipulative marketing has already evolved - and thats with bounded LLMs. There are comments that look innocuous, well written, but the entire purpose is to low key get someone to do a google search for a firm.

And thats on a reddit sub. Completely ignoring the other million types of content moderation that have to adapt.

Holy hell people. Attack and denial opportunities on the net are VERY different from the physical world. You want to keep a market place of ideas running? Well guess what - If I clog the arteries faster than you can get ideas in place, then people stop getting those ideas.

And you CANT solve it by adding MORE content. You have only X amount of attention. (This was a growing issue radio->tv->cable->Internet scales)

Unless someone is sticking a chip into our heads to increase processing capacity magically, more content isnt going to help.

And in case someone comes up with some brilliant edge case - Does it generalize to a billion+ people ? Can it be operationalized? Does it require a sweet little grandma in the Philippines to learn how to run a federated server? Does it assume people will stop behaving like people?

Oh also - does it cost money and engineering resources? Well guess what, T&S is a cost center. Heck - T&S reduces churn, and that its protecting revenue is a novel argument today. T&S has existed for a decade plus.

/ Rant.

Hmm, seems like I need a break. I suppose It’s been one of those weeks. I will most likely delete this out of shame eventually.

- People in other places want more controls. The Indian government and a large portion of the populace will want stricter controls on what can be generated from an LLM.

This may not necessarily be good for free thought and culture, however the reality is that many nations haven’t travelled the same distance or path as America has.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#269

Post by ethbr1 »

drcode wrote: post #237
eightnoteight wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> here they explain why they had to betray their core mission. But they don't refute that they did betray it. you are assuming that their core mission is to "Build an AGI that can help humanity for free and as a non-profit", the way their thinking seems to be is "Build an AGI that can help humanity for free" they figured it was impossible to achieve their core mission by doing it in a non-profit way, so they went wit…

The problem of course is that they frequently go back on their promises (see they changes in their usage guidelines regarding military projects) so excuse me if I don't believe them when they say they'll voluntarily give away their AGI tech for the greater good of humanity

Wholeheartedly agreed.

The easiest way to cut through corporate BS is to find distinguishing characteristics of the contrary motivation. In this case:

OpenAI says: To deliver AI for the good of all humanity, it needs the resources to compete with hyperscale competitors, so it needs to sell extremely profitable services.

Contrary motivation: OpenAI wants to sell extremely profitable services to make money, and it wants to control cutting edge AI to make even more money.

What distinguishing characteristics exist between the two motivations?

Because from where I'm sitting, it's a coin flip as to which one is more likely.

Add in the facts that (a) there's a lot of money on the table & (b) Sam Altman has a demonstrated propensity for throwing people under the bus when there's profit in it for himself, and I don't feel comfortable betting on OpenAI's altruism.

PS: Also, when did it become acceptable for a professional fucking company to publicly post emails in response to a lawsuit? That's trashy and smacks of response plan set up and ready to go.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#270

Post by FeepingCreature »

Zambyte wrote: post #233
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're probably right that building AGI will require a ton of computational power, and that it will be very expensive. Why? This makes it seem like computers are way less efficient than humans. Maybe I'm naive on the matter, but I think it's possible for computers to match or surpass human efficiency.

Computers are more efficient, dense and powerful than humans. But due to self-assembly, brains consist of many(!) orders of magnitude more volume. A human brain is more accurately compared with a data center than a chip.
Post reply on HN