OpenAI and Elon Musk • Hacker News Board

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#681

Post by NeutralCrane » Wed, Mar 06, 2024, 2:41 PM UTC

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]

If you are simplifying collectivism to “communism” and individualism as “not communism”, then sure. But having lived in Japan for several years, which is a much more collectivist culture compared to the hyper-individualism of the US/West, I can confidently say that, while not perfect, they are in a much healthier state as a society.

As in most things in life, the golden path is usually somewhere in the middle, and US individualism has lurched far to the extreme, and is going to lead to its collapse if not reversed.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#682

Post by throw4847285 » Wed, Mar 06, 2024, 2:42 PM UTC

Jensson wrote: post #539

hef19898 wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You've made the rookie mistake of reducing the concept of self-interest to anything somebody does because they want to, and thus making egoism tautologically true.

You can convince people that radically different things are in their self-interest, from joining hands and singing Kumbaya to Genocide.

The notion of self-interest (or I guess in your case individualism, which is even shakier) is an empty vessel you can fill with nearly anything.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#683

Post by loceng » Wed, Mar 06, 2024, 2:42 PM UTC

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 without making a profit, it's impossible to afford the salaries 100s of experts in the field and an army of hardware to train new models."

Except there's a proof point that it's not impossible: philanthropists like Elon Musk - who would have likely kept pumping money into it, and where arguably the U.S. and other governments would have funded efforts - energy and/or CPU time - as a military defense strategy to help compete with China's CCP funding AI.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#684

Post by paulddraper » Wed, Mar 06, 2024, 2:42 PM UTC

jrflowers wrote: post #416

carlossouza wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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... Based on this line of reasoning, ANY company that builds any given technology and intends to share (sell) it to the world, but not divulge how it was done, can call itself OpenWhatever. They are clearly saying that the word “Open” in their name means nothing.

> They are clearly saying that the word “Open” in their name means nothing. Similarly Micro soft makes incredibly large software and my letters about this have gone unanswered

Microsoft made software for small computers (PCs) not diminutive software

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#685

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Mar 06, 2024, 2:44 PM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #441

sigmoid10 wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just the volume of original data that matters here. From empirics we know performance scales roughly like (model parameters)*(training data)*(epochs). If you increase any one of those, you can be certain to improve your model. In the short term, training data volume and quality has given a lot of improvements (especially recently), but in the long run it was always model size and total time spent training th…

In smaller models, not having enough training data for the model size leads to overfitting. The model predicts the training data better than ever, but generalizes poorly and performs worse on new inputs. Is there any reason to think the same thing wouldn't happen in billion parameter LLMs?

[deleted]

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#686

Post by boredtofears » Wed, Mar 06, 2024, 2:44 PM UTC

mlrtime wrote: post #671

boredtofears wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can think of a few: - Long form discussion where people think before responding. - Greater ability to filter/tag/prioritize incoming messages. - Responses are usually expected within hours, not minutes. - Email does not have a status indicator that broadcasts whether I am sitting at my desk at that particular moment to every coworker at my company.

1 & 2 are human behaviors, not a technology. You can argue that a tech promotes a behavior but this sounds like a boundaries issue, not a tech issue. #2 I agree with you, again Slack is not perfect but better than email [my opinion] #4 Slack has status updates, email does not. So you can choose to turn this off, again boundaries.

Real time chat environments are not conducive to long form communication. I've never been a part of an organization that does long form communication well on slack. You can call it a boundary issue - it doesn't really matter how you categorize the problem, it's definitely a change from email.

Regarding #4, I can't turn off my online/offline indicator, I can only go online or offline. I can't even set the time it takes to go idle. These are intentionally not configurable in slack. I have no desire to have a real time status indicator in the tool I use to communicate with coworkers.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#687

Post by xbar » Wed, Mar 06, 2024, 2:46 PM UTC

Two things can be trouble.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#688

Post by ozgung » Wed, Mar 06, 2024, 2:47 PM UTC

addicted wrote: post #556

usefulcat wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So.. "open" means "open at first, then not so much or not at all as we get closer to achieving AGI"? As they become more successful, they (obviously) have a lot of motivation to not be "open" at all, and that's without even considering the so-called ethical arguments. More generally, putting "open" in any name frequently ends up as a cheap marketing gimmick. If you end up going nowhere it doesn't matter, and if you'r…

OpenAI is literally not a word in the dictionary. It’s a made up word. So the Open in OpenAI means whatever OpenAI wants it to mean. It’s a trademarked word. The fact that Elon is suing them for their name when the guy has a feature “AutoPilot” which is not a made up word and had an actual well understood meaning which totally does not apply to how Tesla uses AutoPilot is hilarious.

Actually Open[Technology] pattern implies a meaning in this context. OpenGL, OpenCV, OpenCL etc. are all 'open' implementations of a core technology, maintained by non-profit organizations. So OpenAI non-profit immediately implies a non-profit for researching, building and sharing 'open' AI technologies. Their earlier communication and releases supported that idea.

Apparently, their internal definition was different from the very beginning (2016). The only problem with their (Ilya's) definition of 'open' is that it is not very open. "Everyone should benefit from the fruits of AI". How is this different than the mission of any other commercial AI lab? If OpenAI makes the science closed but only their products open, then 'open' is just a term they use to define their target market.

A better definition of OpenAi's 'open' is that they are not a secret research lab. They act as a secret research lab, but out in the open.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#689

Post by Davidzheng » Wed, Mar 06, 2024, 2:47 PM UTC

snoman wrote: post #329

ce4 wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where did you get that it was sent by Ilya? The to: field is redacted.

The name is not redacted, only the exact e-mail address.

I don't think it's correct. I think it's sent by redacted and ilya later responded to it. I don't think ilya linked the codex

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#690

Post by jmull » Wed, Mar 06, 2024, 2:47 PM UTC

Zambyte wrote: post #261

lagt_t wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everytime they say LLMs are the path to AGI, I cringe a little.

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?

You're arguing that LLMs would be a good user interface for AGI...

Whether that's true or not, I don't think that's what the previous post was referring to. The question is, if you start with today's LLMs and progressively improve them, do you arrive at AGI?

(I think it's pretty obvious the answer is no -- LLMs don't even have an intelligence part to improve on. A hypothetical AGI might somehow use an LLM as part of a language interface subsystem, but the general intelligence would be outside the LLM. An AGI might also use speakers and mics but those don't give us a path to AGI either.)