A lot of fluff in here, most of it selectively chosen. I'll be waiting for the discovery in the court case before I form an opinion on who is in the right here.
OpenAI and Elon Musk
321–330 of 1001 posts
Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk
#322Earlier 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…
The benefit is the science, nothing else matters, and having OpenAI decide what matters for everyone is repugnant. Of course they can give us nothing, but in that case they should start paying taxes and stop claiming they're a public benefit org. My prediction is they'll produce little of value going forward. They're too distracted by their wet dreams about all the cash they're going to make to focus on the job at ha…
I agree with your sentiment but the prediction is very silly. Basically every time openai releases something they beat the state of the art in that area by a large margin.
Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk
#323Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk
#324Earlier 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?
The underlying premise that llms are capable of fully generalizing to a human level across most domains, i assume?
Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk
#325Their 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…
> Society is approaching them as some type of universal ethical arbiter, expecting an omniscient sense of justice which is fundamentally unreconcilable even between two sentient humans when the ethics are really just a hacked on mod to the core model.
That’s a real issue but I doubt the solution is technical. Society will have to educate itself on this topic. It’s urgent that society understand rapidly that LLMs are just word prediction machines.
I use LLMs everyday, they can be useful even when they say stupid things. But mastering this tool requires that you understand it may invent things at any moment.
Just yesterday I tried the Cal.ai assistant which role is to manage your planning (but it don’t have access to your calendars that’s pretty limited). You communicate with it by mail. I asked him to organise a trip by train and book an hotel. It responded, « sure what is your preferred time for the train and which comfort do you want ? » I answered and it answered back that, fine, it will organise this trip and reach me back later. It even added that it will book me an hotel.
Well, it can’t even do that, it’s just a bot made to reorganize your cal.com meetings. So it just did nothing, of course. Nothing horrible since I know how it works.
But would I have been uneducated enough on the topic (like 99,99% of this planet’s population, I’d just thought « Cool, my trip is being organized, I can relax now ».
But hey, it succeeded at the main LLM task : being credible.
Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk
#326I'm kind of surprised they'd post something this substantial without any apparent proofreading (given the repetition around the Tesla stuff).
Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk
#327Earlier quoted context omitted.
It just means that LLMs are an interpolation of everything on the internet. They would seem less like they have a point of view or an opinion on things.
They would have the average point of view of the Internet, which is far from truthful or even useful.
LLMs don't really average viewpoints. They just learn multiple viewpoints.