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

471–480 of 1001 posts

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#471

Post by ActorNightly »

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're probably right that building AGI will require a ton of computational power, and that it will be very expensive

Eh.

Humans have about 1.5 * 10 ^ 14 synapses (i.e connections between neurons). Assume all the synapses are firing (highly unlikely to be the case in reality), and the average firing speed is 0.05ms (there are chemical synapses that are much slower, but we take the fastest speed of the electrical synapses).

Assume that each synapse is essntially a signal that gets attenuated somehow in transmission. I.e value times a fractional weight, which really is a floating point operation. That gives us (1.5 * 10 ^14)/(0.0005)/(10 ^ 12)) = 300000 TFLOPS

Nvidia 4090 is capable of 1300 Tflop of fp8. So for comparable compute, we need 230 4090s, which is about $345k. So with everything else on board, you are looking at $500k, which is comparatively not that much money, and thats consumer pricing.

The biggest expense like you said is paying salaries of people who are gonna figure out the right software to put on those 4090s. I just hope that most of them aren't working on LLMs.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#472

Post by amarant »

andrepd wrote: post #351
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest real problem I’m experiencing right now isn’t controls on the AI, it’s weird spam emails that bypass spam filters because they look real enough, but are just cold email marketing bullshit: https://x.com/tlalexander/status/1765122572067434857 These systems are making the internet a worse place to be.

Generative AI will make the world on general a worse place to be. They are not very good at writing truth, but they are very excellent at writing convincing bullshit . It's already difficult to distinguish generated text/image/video from human responses / real footage, its only gonna get more difficult to do so and cheaper to generate. In other words, it's very likely generative AI will be very good at creating fake…

Replace "AI" in your comment with "human journalists" and it still holds largely true though.

It's not like AI invented clickbait, though it might have mastered the art of it.

The convincing bullshit problem does not stem from AI, I'd argue it stems from the interaction between ad revenue and SEO and the weird and unexpected incentives created in when mixing those 2.

To put it differently, the problem isn't that AI will be great at writing 100 pages of bullshit you'll need to scroll through to get to the actual recipie, the problem is that there was an incentive to write those pages in there first place. Personally I don't care if a human or a robot wrote the bs, in fact I'm glad one fewer human has to waste their time doing just that. Would be great if cutting the bs was a more profitable model though.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#473

Post by johnnyanmac »

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…

>And in case someone comes up with some brilliant edge case - Does it generalize to a billion+ people ?

The answer is curation, and no, it doesn't need to scale to a billion people. maybe not even a million.

The sad fact of life is that most people don't care enough to discrminate against low quality content, so they are already a lost cause. Focus on those who do care enough and build an audience around them. You as a likely not billion dollar company can't afford to worry about that kind of scale, and lowering the scale helps you get a solution out for the short term. You can worry about scaling if/when you tap into an audience.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#474

Post by carlossouza »

mikkom wrote: post #292
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…

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.

Their name is as brilliant as

“The Democratic People's Republic of Korea”

(AKA North Korea)

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#475

Post by bergen »

Jensson wrote: post #438
bergen wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you truely believe google, OpenAI or Ford are the product of a single person?

Everyone contributed for the sake of themselves and not for the greater good of the company, that is what individualism is.

Hospitals, Daycare, Schools, Social Work, Police, Fire Departments, Puclic Infrastructure, ... would fall apart in minutes if this would be mindset there.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#476

Post by belter »

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…

From all the evidence, the one to look the worst on all of this is Google...

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#477

Post by kramerger »

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…

> 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

They don't refute that, but they claim that road was chosen in agreement with Elon. In fact, the claim this was his suggestion

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#478

Post by [deleted] »

enriquec wrote: post #208
ajisiekskaiek wrote: post #153

Earlier 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]

[deleted]

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#479

Post by davej »

LatticeAnimal wrote: post #18

> 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 (even though sharing everything is definitely the right strategy in the short and possibly medium term for recruitment purposes). That is surprisingly greedy & selfish to be boasting about in their own…

I think you're misreading the intention here. The intention of closing it up as they approach AGI is to protect against dangerous applications of the technology.

That is how I read it anyway and I don't see a reason to interpret it in a nefarious way.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#480

Post by WalterBright »

hef19898 wrote: post #421
WalterBright wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US became a superpower long before WW2. The US was the deciding factor in WW1, and the Germans were shocked at how well-fed and well-equipped the US soldiers were, even with having to ship everything across the ocean. The US saw the most spectacular rise in the standard of living from 1800 up to WW2 the world had ever seen. This was all due to the free market, not collectivism. During WW2, the US supplied its all…

The US were much less a factor in WW1 than WW2. If anything, the US entry forced the Entente's hands to start the planned 1919 offensive early in 1918 and ending the war. The USA did not contribute a large amlint of troops, relative to the armies already deployed, nor did they contribute significant amounts of gear. Lend-Lease was a WW2 thing, in WW1 the majority of US tanks for example were actually French. The US w…

Britain would have lost WW1 and WW2 without massive US support. The WW1 Germans were not amazed by British soldiers' supplies and health. They were amazed by the US soldiers' supplies and health.

> Finally, the US war economy of WW2 was decidedly not free

FDR mobilized existing free market businesses to convert to war production. It was not a collective, nor was it forced labor. For example, Ford switched from producing cars to producing tanks and airplanes. After the war, Ford switched back to making cars. Ford was paid to do this by the government.

FDR's State of the Union Address of 1945 proposed switching the economy to forced labor. Apparently, he was an admirer of Stalin. Fortunately, he was not able to make that happen.

Post reply on HN