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

311–320 of 1001 posts

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#311

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#313

Post by sigmoid10 »

Jensson wrote: post #298
Zambyte wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is very little in terms of rigorous mathematics on the theoretical side of this. All we have are empirics, but everything we have seen so far points to the fact that more compute equals more capabilities. That's what they are referring to in the blog post. This is particularly true for the current generation of models, but if you look at the whole history of modern computing, the law roughly holds up over the last century. Following this trend, we can extrapolate that we will reach computers with raw compute power similar to the human brain for under $1000 within the next two decades.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#314

Post by 2pointsomone »

If anyone paying the right price to access a product, and no underlying technology, making it "open", isn't most of the world's technology open? Isn't Apple really OpenApple? Isn't Oracle really OpenOracle? Apple probably puts out more open-source tech than OpenAI.

Does the word mean much anymore, then? Is it nothing more than a sentiment then?

Perhaps OpenAI should have renamed itself to "AI for all" or something when they adopted the capped-profit model. Perhaps they should've returned donor funds and turned fully for-profit too. Perhaps that was a genuine resolution and pivot, which every org should be able to allowed to do.

Genuine question, I run a nonprofit whose name starts with "open". But we do explicitly bring closed source work to be more openly licensed, without necessarily making the technology open-source.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#315

Post by Jensson »

sroussey wrote: post #195
nonethewiser wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 understanding of what these models are useful for. This slices through a lot of double speak about AI safety. At the same time, people use “safety” to mean n…

What are you talking bout? It’s been deeply running google search for many years. And AI for electrical grids and factories has also been a thing for a couple years.

LLMs hasn't been deeply integrated into google search for many years. The snippets you see predates LLMs, it is based on other techniques.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#316

Post by BriggyDwiggs42 »

intended wrote: post #268
lmm wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

As of right now, the only solution I see is forums walled off in some way, complex captchas, intense proof of work, subscription fees etc. Only alternative might be obscurity, which makes the forum less useful. Maybe we could do like a web3 type thing but instead of pointless cryptos, you have a cryptographic proof that certifies you did the captcha or whatever and lots of sites accept them. I don’t think its unsolvable, just that it will make the internet somewhat worse.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#317

Post by selestify »

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…

What evidence do we have that a hard takeoff is likely?

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#318

Post by buzzert »

sgammon wrote: post #282

Has anyone else noticed the redactions have variable widths? A little video of devtools: https://customer-zppj20fjkae6kidj.cloudflarestream.com/e28e5... I remember seeing techniques which could decode such redactions from PDFs. I don't know why the widths would be included unless it was intentional (stylistic, maybe? but it would be a bear to code), or perhaps exported from something like Adobe Acrobat. Elon's email…

Somebody used Claude to attempt to un-redact the missing text, and the result it generated is scarily convincing:

https://twitter.com/skirano/status/1765238754615181531

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#319

Post by DustinBrett »

swat535 wrote: post #290

Why would anyone even be under the impression that Elon would be pursuing some higher truth or a noble goal by this suite ? This response is comical and ironically proves Musk's point that OpenAI is just a profit seeking organization structured in a way to masquerade as a non profit to doge taxes. Basically a clever scheme by Sam, he gets to have his cake and eat it too this way and probably everyone at the leadershi…

Because his actions have shown he is several times.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#320

Post by atleastoptimal »

Did people really think leading the development of the most important invention in human history wouldn’t involve a little bit of drama?

I know everyone wants OpenAI to be a magical place that open sources their models the moment they’re done training, but it’s clear that they’ve chosen a reasonable path for their business based on both practicality and risk reduction. If they had gone another way, today they’d be an unceremonious branch of Elon’s empire, or a mid-level nonprofit that never had the means to hire the best people and is still spending all their time soliciting donations to train GPT 3.5.

They did what they believed they had to do to be the ones to get to AGI. Will they be the safest stewards of this tech? Hard to say, though it’s clear even the once safety minded Anthropic isn’t shying from releasing SOTA models.

Post reply on HN