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

541–550 of 1001 posts

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#541

Post by Jensson »

bergen wrote: post #475
Jensson wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, the mindset there is that workers wants money, just like everywhere else. Not sure why you think otherwise.

If you mean that humans sometimes do more than the bare minimum, sure they do that. But that is an inherent part of humans, that has nothing to do with individualism or collectivist systems, humans do that in all systems, that is a part of the value of a human worker and why you pay them to work for you.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#542

Post by hef19898 »

ben_w wrote: post #538
hef19898 wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 partic…

Yes, I'd say so. With the exception of drug availability issues, which started if I am not mistaken in the mid to late 70s (basically when the USSR started to really fall behind the West technologically), those aspects worked reasonably well in the USSR.

And before someone says Venezuela or North Korea, the former is a deeply corrupt cleptocracy while the latter used to be the last stone-age version of Stalinism before the whole nation was turned into an open air concentration camp by its dictator.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#543

Post by andoando »

globalvariablex wrote: post #246

>"Given both the competitive landscape and the safety implications of large-scale models like GPT-4, this report contains no further details about the architecture (including model size), hardware, training compute, dataset construction,training method, or similar." I am not a fan of the "enjoy the fruits but not the science" statement they made in the blog. The quote above was from GPT-4's technical paper. I'll go t…

It’s a ridiculous statement. Any corporation can say their goal is to make their product available to as many people as possible.

I love how transparent it makes it though that these guys live in a bubble and you shouldn’t take their beliefs too seriously

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#544

Post by KoolKat23 »

uncomputation wrote: post #70
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 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 serfs benefitted from the use of the landlord's tools.

This would mean it is fundamentally just a business with extra steps. At the very least, the "foundation" should be paying tax then.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#545

Post by ascorbic »

Jensson wrote: post #419
ascorbic wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was pretty skeptical about this too, but looking into it there is some basis in fact. They're using it to help translate and integrate the "Acquis communautaire" - the huge body of EU laws and regulations that need to be enshrined in national laws of candidate countries. This is one of the most time-consuming parts of the process, and usually takes many years. Leaving aside how risky this is (presumably they will h…

Translating that doesn't seem to take very long though. Looked up an example, Sweden voted to enter EU 13 nov 1994, and legally entered and had thus finished incorporating that into their legislation 1 jan 1995, so 1.5 months at most. Not sure what 5.5 years means, maybe they meant the total amount of working years in manhours saved?

The incorporation of the acquis is part of the negotation process, and had already been completed by the time of the referendum. It had started in 1991, which was unusually fast.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#546

Post by ben_w »

lupusreal wrote: post #534
ben_w wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Your code because you own it.

I code because I'm good at it, enjoy it, and it pays well.

I recommend against 3rd party libraries because they give me responsibility without authority — I'd own the problem without the means to fix it.

Despite this, they're a near-universal in our industry.

> 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.

Eventually.

But that doesn't help with the existing deployed code — and even if it did, this is a situation where, when the capability is invented, attack capability is likely to spread much faster than the ability of businesses to catch up with defence.

Even just one zero-day can be bad, this… would probably be "many" almost simultaneously. (I'd be surprised if it was "all", regardless of how good the AI was).

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#547

Post by fallingknife »

ben_w wrote: post #434
BriggyDwiggs42 wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of damage can you do with a current day llm? I’m guessing targeted scams or something? They aren’t even good hackers yet.

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"…

The moment LLMs are good hackers every system will be continuously pen tested by automated LLMs and there will be very few remaining vulnerabilities for the black hat LLMs to exploit.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#548

Post by friendzis »

amarant wrote: post #472
andrepd wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

> 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.

Personally, I highly dislike this handwaving of SEO. SEO is not some sinister agenda following secret cult trying to disseminate bullshit. SEO is just... following the rules set forth by search engines, which for quite a long time is effectively singlehandedly Google.

Those "weird and unexpected incentives" are put forth by Google. If Google for whatever reason started ranking "vegetable growing articles > preparation technique articles > recipes > shops selling vegetables" we would see metaphorical explosion of home gardening in mere few years, only due to the relatively long lifecycles inherent in gardening.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#549

Post by hef19898 »

Jensson wrote: post #536
hef19898 wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 individual…

What, no!

In any system people have to work to live: food, housing and such cost money. Doing "good" has nithing to do with it, and I never said that. The question is, do you care about more than the monthly pay check for something you pass most of your day doing or not?

What keeps the workers showing up to work is the need to live. What keeps them at a particular place is a myriad of things. Individualism is not part of that.

And why do you go immediately to "remove the pay"? There is quite some territory between working for free and not valueing a sufficient salary above all else.

Funny so, how everybody working in a sector withbstrong labour unions is basically making more, for less hours, on average than those without them. Seems individualism is a great way to devide and conquer for people holding all the power, because once peoole are convinced individualism is better than cooperation, they voluntarily devide themselves.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#550

Post by bergen »

Jensson wrote: post #541
bergen wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No, the mindset there is that workers wants money, just like everywhere else. Not sure why you think otherwise. If you mean that humans sometimes do more than the bare minimum, sure they do that. But that is an inherent part of humans, that has nothing to do with individualism or collectivist systems, humans do that in all systems, that is a part of the value of a human worker and why you pay them to work for you.

>No, the mindset there is that workers wants money, just like everywhere else. Not sure why you think otherwise.

Because I know people that work there, and money surely isn't the first reason you are teaching a bunch of brats while having parts of the public look down on you if you can easily get double the amount somewhere outside of the field. Same for political work, crowdsourcing, .. People take gratification in doing something that matters to society. Yes, they want to survive, but they are quite often not doing it for the money, the money is a nice bonus and enables to do it full-time, but that is not always the reason you do it.

Also you are goalpost moving, you said first they are only doing it only for themselves not for "the company", and people often do it for the institution that employs them. Not because they are paid, but because they believe they are doing something that matters.

Post reply on HN