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

531–540 of 1001 posts

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#531

Post by ben_w »

lupusreal wrote: post #529
ben_w wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The moment they are good hackers, everyone has a trivially cheap hacker. Hard to predict what that would look like, but I suspect it is a world where nobody is employing software developers because a LLM that can hack can probably also write good code. So, do you want future LLMs to be restricted, or unlimited? And remember, to prevent this outcome you have to predict model capabilities in advance, including "tricks"…

Use the hacking LLM to verify your code before pushing to prod. EZ

> your code

To verify the LLM's code, because the LLM is cheaper than a human.

And there's a lot of live code already out there.

And people are only begrudgingly following even existing recommendations for code quality.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#532

Post by bambax »

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…

True.

> “The Open in openAI means that everyone should benefit from the fruits of AI after its [sic] built, but it's totally OK to not share the science...”, to which Elon replied: “Yup”.

Well, nope. This is disingenuous to the point of absurdity. By that measure every commercial enterprise is "open". Google certainly is extremely open, as are Apple, Amazon, Microsoft... or Wallmart, Exxon, you name it.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#533

Post by menzoic »

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 instead of changing their name and their mission, and returning the donations they took from these wealthy tech founders, they used the benevolent appearance of their non-profit status and their name to mislead everyone about their intentions.

Why would they change their mission? If achieving the mission requires money then they should figure out how to get money. Non-profit doesn't actually mean that the corporation isn't allowed to make profit.

Why change the name? They never agreed to open source everything, the stated mission was to make sure AGI benefits all of humanity.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#534

Post by lupusreal »

ben_w wrote: post #531
lupusreal wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Use the hacking LLM to verify your code before pushing to prod. EZ

> your code To verify the LLM's code , because the LLM is cheaper than a human. And there's a lot of live code already out there. And people are only begrudgingly following even existing recommendations for code quality.

Your code because you own it. If LLM hackers are rampant as you fear then people will respond by telling their code writing LLMs to get their shit together and check the code for vulnerabilities.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#535

Post by andoando »

fillskills wrote: post #48

This is going to come across as contrarian view and get a lot of downvotes - OpenAI is being 'open'. Not Open Source, but Open. They are bringing AGI tech to the common person at affordable pricing. Before OpenAI, all the AI and its use cases were hidden behind closed doors at Google. By kickstarting the AI race, they have created high standards, new knowledge, and enough momentum to hold up the entire startup ecosys…

By that definition every corporation aims to be open as possible…

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#536

Post by Jensson »

hef19898 wrote: post #465
Jensson wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have colleagues that would continue to work if they no longer got paid? Rats jump ship in an individualistic system, in a collectivist system you expect the rats to sacrifice themselves to save the whole. Managers often tries to sell you on the collective so you work harder and demand less pay, but that is just him as an individual trying to get more out of you that doesn't mean it actually works like a collectiv…

I have collegues who care about their work quality, and the impact their work has in their colleuges work. In short, they care about more than just a pay check and increasing that pay check. Like in non-selfcentered egomaniacs.

But the main reason they are there is someone paid them to be there. Of course humans like to do good, so why not do good while getting paid, but the glue for the whole system is individualism, that is what makes all the workers go to work every day so it is what keeps them together. Remove the pay and all the workers scatters and move to different places in almost every case.

Or in other words, that is an individualistic organization.

> care about their work quality, and the impact their work has in their colleuges work

Yeah, they care about their own ideals, not the organization itself. They can care about their coworkers, but they don't care about Wallmarts bottomline.

So as you see, this individualistic organization can still draw from the power of human collectivist needs, so you get the best of both worlds, you get the collectivist goodness at small scale and the greed that glues together them and make them power through even when they are too tired to care about the collective.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#537

Post by [deleted] »

menzoic wrote: post #533
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 instead of changing their name and their mission, and returning the donations they took from these wealthy tech founders, they used the benevolent appearance of their non-profit status and their name to mislead everyone about their intentions. Why would they change their mission? If achieving the mission requires money then they should figure out how to get money. Non-profit doesn't actually mean that the corpo…

[deleted]

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#538

Post by ben_w »

hef19898 wrote: post #444
ben_w wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's way more complex than that. The Communist Manifesto was published during the Great Famine in Ireland, and that famine was much worse than it needed to be because the UK government didn't intervene. And a big part of the growth in capitalist societies is related to corporate structures, which are small scale collectives, with bosses who make decisions for all. When the US civil war happened, that resulted in the…

When you look at how by the book Communism, not necessarily the one Marx wrote about, runs their economies, you start to see a lot of parallels to how companies run their businesses. The mistake is to apply those priciples at too high a level, as it takes away some of the individual decisions and incentives, and not everything can be managed centrally, especially the customer demand side. Communist industry and econo…

> Communist industry and economy worked reasonably well for the stuff were the state is the natural customer in any society: defence. Everything else, not so much.

One thing I've been wondering: would housing, transport infrastructure, energy grid(s)[0], banking and similar basic financial services, water, basic food[1], education, emergency services, healthcare, waste disposal in general and public toilets in particular, be in the same category here as defence?

Possibly even all of the primary economy, so include all mining as well as agriculture?

[0] both electricity and physical fuels

[1] at the level of where most of the calories and proteins come from, possibly even "basics" ranges in supermarkets, but not at the level of restaurants or fancy food ranges in supermarkets

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#539

Post by Jensson »

hef19898 wrote: post #469
johnnyanmac wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's more comparable to say "You have colleagues that would continue to work even if they got a better paying job offer?". A purely individualistic mindset would take whatever gets them more money for less hours. Someone staying despite that must have some sort of collectivist mindset that is non-financial qualities of life. Be it the company, the peers, the problem space, etc.

Some people should really read up on Pawlow's pyramid. Money isn't everything...

I didn't say they only cared about money, but that they stayed for their own reasons and not for the sake of the company. If they find the work at one place less demanding they might take that instead, but that is an individualistic reason as well.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#540

Post by edanm »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #498
edanm wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh I'm talking about the ideal, not what they're actually doing.

Sadly one can’t be separated from the other. I’d agree if it was true. But there’s no evidence it ever has been. One thought experiment is to imagine someone developing software with a promise to open source the benign parts, then withholding most of it for business reasons while citing aliens as a concern.

> One thought experiment is to imagine someone developing software with a promise to open source the benign parts, then withholding most of it for business reasons while citing aliens as a concern.

I mean, I'm totally with them on the fear of AI safety. I'm definitely in the "we need to be very scared of AI" camp. Actually the alien thought experiment is nice - because if we credibly believed aliens would come to earth in the next 50 years, I think there's a lot of things we would/should do differently, and I think it's hard to argue that there's no credible fear of reaching AGI within 50 years.

That said, I think OpenAI is still problematic, since they're effectively hastening the arrival of the thing they supposedly fear. :shrug:

Post reply on HN