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

481–490 of 1001 posts

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#481

Post by Nursie »

ben_w wrote: post #435
boredtofears wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fake revenge porn, nearly undetectable bot creation on social media with realistic profiles (I've already seen this on HN), generated artwork passed off as originals, chatbots that replace real-time human customer service but have none of the agency... I can keep going. All of these are things that have already happened. These all were previously possible of course but now they are trivially scalable.

Most of those examples make sense, but what's this doing on your list? > chatbots that replace real-time human customer service but have none of the agency That seems good for society, even though it's bad for people employed in that specific job.

> That seems good for society, even though it's bad for people employed in that specific job.

Why?

It inserts yet another layer of crap you have to fight through before you can actually get anything done with a company. The avoidance of genuine customer service has become an artform by many companies and corporations, its demise surely should be lamented. A chatbot is just another in the arsenal of weapons designed to confuse, put-off and delay the cost of having to actually provide a decent service to you customers, which should be a basic responsibility of any public-facing company.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#482

Post by WalterBright »

fragmede wrote: post #398
WalterBright wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I _voluntarily_ decide to join a "collective", am I individualist or collectivist? An individualist, if you are free to leave it at any time. There's nothing wrong with forming a collective in the US, I think like 20,000 of them have been formed over the last 240 years. You don't hear about them much because they all failed. You're free to start a collective anytime in the US and try to make it work. Isn't freed…

They haven't all failed. I hear about REI quite a lot. Rainbow Grocery is quite popular in SF. I hear good things about Organic Valley. Equal Exchange is in Massachusetts. It's popular to bank at a credit union instead of a bank. The NCBA maintains a list of several thousand collective/coop businesses. https://ncbaclusa.coop/

I was using collective in the sense of being a commune. Sorry about not being clear.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#483

Post by scarygliders »

ben_w wrote: post #433
FeepingCreature wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counter-counterpoint: absolutely nobody who has unguardrailed Stable Diffusion installed at home for private use has ever asked for more guardrails. I'm just saying. :) Guardrails nowadays don't really focus on dangers (it's hard to see how an image generator could produce dangers!) so much as enforcing public societal norms.

> Counter-counterpoint: absolutely nobody who has unguardrailed Stable Diffusion installed at home for private use has ever asked for more guardrails. Not so. I have it at home, I make nice wholesome pictures of raccoons and tigers sitting down for Christmas dinner etc., but I also see stories like this and hope they're ineffective: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68440150

Unfortunately you've been misled by the BBC. Please read this: https://order-order.com/2024/03/05/bbc-panoramas-disinformat...

Those AI generated photos are from a Twitter/X parody account @Trump_History45 , not from the Trump campaign as the BBC mistakenly (or misleadingly) claim.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#484

Post by sillysaurusx »

davej wrote: post #479
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.

"Tools for me, but not for thee."

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#485

Post by averageRoyalty »

TheAlchemist wrote: post #285
dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is OpenAI had a reputation to protect, Musk can't sink any lower at this point, and his stans will persist. The fact that they slinging mud at each other just proves the mutual criticism though, and provides an edifying spectacle for the rest of us.

> Musk can't sink any lower at this point, and his stans will persist. You sure about that ? For now they are largely looking away (and boy it's hard !) from his 'far right' adventures. But it was just reported that he met with Trump. And it's pretty clear that if Trump is elected and does cancel EV subsides as he says he will do, Tesla is dead and he knows it. So now, we have both of those guys, having something eac…

> if Trump is elected and does cancel EV subsides as he says he will do, Tesla is dead

You know that Tesla operates outside the US as well, right? Where 95% of the worlds population live?

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#486

Post by davej »

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…

This is misleading. Please read the actual source in context rather than just the excerpt (it's at the bottom of the blog). They are talking about AI safety and not maximizing profit.

Here's the previous sentence for context:

> “a safe AI is harder to build than an unsafe one, then by opensorucing everything, we make it easy for someone unscrupulous with access to overwhelming amount of hardware to build an unsafe AI, which will experience a hard takeoff.”

As an aside: it's frustrating that the parent comment gets upvoted heavily for 7 hours and nobody has bothered to read the relevant context.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#488

Post by 6510 »

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…

The only thing I'm offended by is the way people are seemingly unable to judge what is said by who is saying it. Parrots, small children and demented old people say weird things all the time. Grown ups wrote increasingly weird things the further back you go.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#489

Post by edanm »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #484
davej wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Tools for me, but not for thee."

When the tools are (believed to be) more dangerous than nuclear weapons, and the "thee" is potentially irresponsible and/or antagonists, then... yes? This is a valid (and moral) position.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#490

Post by lispm »

The level of nonsense is amazing.

AGI is far away and not yet a problem of "compute power". We've seen with Autonomous Driving what these statements are worth.

Albania is using ChatGPT to speed up EU accession by upto 5.5 years? What? Implementing EU laws using a tool, whose capability to "understand" legal text is like zero and whose capability to hallucinate is unbounded?

Post reply on HN