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

341–350 of 1001 posts

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#341

Post by consp »

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.

What people call AI might be an algorithm but algorithms are not AI. And it's definitely algorithms which do what you describe. There is very little magic in algorithms.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#342

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#343

Post by atleastoptimal »

Timber-6539 wrote: post #335
atleastoptimal wrote: post #320

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…

> ... chosen a specific path for their business based on both practicality and risk reduction The risk reduction didn't go so well now that Elon is putting up lawyers to force them to become more "open". This organization thrives in the dark and they know their secret to success depends on it. Would save every one a lot of time if they came out as a proper non-profit and dropped "open" in the name/branding. > If they…

I’m pretty sure Elon won’t win the case, and still, 49% is less than 100%

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#344

Post by tayo42 »

> with someone whom we’ve deeply admired...

He keeps showing us the kind of person he is, and people go on and on thinking this, until something happens to them?

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#345

Post by denysvitali »

buzzert wrote: post #318
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

Except the CC part. Why would you include the co-founder of your competitor in an email describing how to win over said competitor?

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#346

Post by andrepd »

elif wrote: post #56
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 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

Does anyone, even the most stereotypical hn SV techbro, thing this kind of thing? That's preposterous.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#347

Post by zo1 »

romwell wrote: post #122
throwup238 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Hard to say. But with a $20 subscription, you could ask ChatGPT 4.0 to interpret the truth that exists in that comment :D

I pay cents for GPT4. Please I urge everyone to stop paying this ridiculous $20 monthly fee if you just occasionally use chatGPT.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#348

Post by tsimionescu »

sharkjacobs wrote: post #297

> 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.

The lack of self-awareness of whoever wrote this, and of all those who signed it, is mind boggling.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#349

Post by FeepingCreature »

Jensson wrote: post #276
FeepingCreature wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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.

To be fair, we've locked ourselves into this to some extent with the focus on lithography and general processors. Because of the 10-1000W bounds of a consumer power supply, there's little point to building a chip that falls outside this range. Peak speed sells, power saving doesn't. Data center processors tend to be clocked a bit lower than desktops for just this reason - but not too much lower, because they share a software ecosystem. Could we build chips that draw microwatts and run at megahertz speeds? Sure, probably, but they wouldn't be very useful to the things that people actually do with chips. So imo the difficulty with matching the brain on efficiency isn't so much that we can't do it as that nobody wants it. (Yet!)

edit: Another major contributing factor is that so far, chips are more bottlenecked on production than operation. Almost any female human can produce more humans using onboard technology. Comparatively, first-rate chips can be made in like three buildings in the entire world and they each cost billions to equip. If we wanted to build a brain with photolithography, we'd need to rent out TSMC for a lot longer than nine months. That results in a much bigger focus on peak performance. We have to go "high" because we cannot practically go "wide".

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#350

Post by tsimionescu »

Falimonda wrote: post #309
sharkjacobs wrote: post #297

> 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.

Why is that such an insane thing for them to say?

How is it not? How could anyone possibly know that number? And what gives you any inkling that it has the remotest chance of being true?
Post reply on HN