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. They claimed that about GPT-2 and used the claim to delay its release.
OpenAI and Elon Musk
271–280 of 1001 posts
Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk
#272Earlier 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]
Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk
#273This has to be a joke, right? I'd like to think Altman paused for a second and chuckled to himself after writing - or reading - that.
Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk
#274Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Collectivism involves deciding for others. If it’s fully voluntary it’s individualism. Working together is not collectivism.
Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk
#275Their 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 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…
https://x.com/tlalexander/status/1765122572067434857
These systems are making the internet a worse place to be.
Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
A typical chip requires more power than a human brain, so I'd say they are comparable. Efficiency isn't per volume but per power or per heat production. Human brains wins those two by far.
Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk
#277Earlier 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…
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
#278Their 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…
And look at that, suddenly news searches are plastered with stories about this...
https://www.google.com/search?q=openai+board&tbm=nws
Who could have possibly forseen that 'openai' + 'musk' + emails would chum the waters for a news cycle? Certainly not a PR firm.
Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk
#279I find it very strange that OpenAI would post this in the middle of a lawsuit. Shouldn't all of these emails come out in discovery anyway? Publishing this only benefits OpenAI if they're betting on the case never reaching discovery. It seems like they just want to publish very select emails which paint a certain picture. Also, DKIM signatures are notably absent, not that we could verify them anyway since the emails a…
Xitter is the #1 source of facts, so - Can't blame them for counter balancing a little.