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

291–300 of 1001 posts

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#291

Post by smallnamespace »

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…

Ilya may have said this to Elon but the public messaging of OpenAI certainly did not paint that picture.

I happen to think that open sourcing frontier models is a bad idea but OpenAI put themselves in the position where people thought they stood for one thing and then did something quite different. Even if you think such a move is ultimately justified, people are not usually going to trust organizations that are willing to strategically mislead.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#292

Post by mikkom »

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…

They are totally closed now, not just keeping their models for themselves for profit purposes. They also don't disclose how their new models work at all.

They really need to change their name and another entity that actually works for open AI should be set up.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#293

Post by afarviral »

Jensson wrote: post #244
afarviral wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 every…

Hmm, indeed

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#294

Post by afarviral »

cortesoft wrote: post #241
afarviral wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I sense that with AGI all the outcomes will be a little less assured, since it is general-purpose. We won't know what hit until it's over. Was it a pandemic? Was it automated-religion? Nuclear weapons seem particularly suited to MAD, but not AGI.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#295

Post by [deleted] »

usefulcat wrote: post #245
uncomputation wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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'r…

[deleted]

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#296

Post by mikkom »

eightnoteight wrote: post #221
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…

> 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…

> still stayed with the mission to offer it for free once the AGI is achieved

And based on how they have acted in the past, how much do you trust they will act as they now say when/if they achieve AGI?

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#297

Post by sharkjacobs »

> For example, Albania is using OpenAI’s tools to accelerate its EU accession by as much as 5.5 years

What an insane thing to say so matter of factly. This is like a character in an airport bookstore political thriller who is poorly written to be smart.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#298

Post by Jensson »

Zambyte wrote: post #261
lagt_t wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think he disagrees with 4:

4. Language prediction training will not get stuck in a local optimum.

Most previous things we train on could have been better served if the model developed AGI, but they didn't. There is no reason to expect LLMs to not get stuck in a local optimum as well, and I have seen no good argument as to why they wouldn't get stuck like everything else we tried.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#299

Post by BriggyDwiggs42 »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #258
trimethylpurine wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the contrast is that strict behavior norms in the West are not governed behavior norms in the East. One arises analogous with natural selection (previous commenter's take). The other through governance. Arguably, the prior resulted in a rebuilding of government with liberty at its foundation (I like this result). That foundation then being, over centuries, again destroyed by governance. In that view, we might…

It sounds like you're just describing why our watch-and-see approach cannot handle a hard AGI/ASI takeoff. A system that first exhibits some questionable danger, then achieves complete victory a few days later, simply cannot be managed by an incremental approach. We pretty much have to pray that we get a few dangerous-but-not-too-dangerous "practice takeoffs" first, and if anything those will probably just make us th…

If there’s no advancements in alignment before takeoff, is there really any remote hope of doing anything? You’d need to legally halt ai progress everywhere in the world and carefully monitor large compute clusters or someone could still do it. Honestly I think we should put tons of money into the control problem, but otherwise just gamble it.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#300

Post by renewiltord »

magnio wrote: post #6

> 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...”, to which Elon replied: “Yup”. Wow the most open OpenAI has ever been is when someone sue them. On the other hand, th…

At the time, all AI models were hidden inside big corporations. We saw research papers but couldn't use any. OpenAI allowed anyone to access modern LLMs. They were open in the sense that they give everyone access to the model.
Post reply on HN