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

871–880 of 1001 posts

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#871

Post by HarHarVeryFunny »

KoolKat23 wrote: post #557
eightnoteight wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> here they explain why they had to betray their core mission. But they don't refute that they did betray it. you are assuming that their core mission is to "Build an AGI that can help humanity for free and as a non-profit", the way their thinking seems to be is "Build an AGI that can help humanity for free" they figured it was impossible to achieve their core mission by doing it in a non-profit way, so they went wit…

There is no fixed point at which you can say it achieves AGI (artificial general intelligence) it's a spectrum. Who decides when they've reached that point as they can always go further. If this is the case, then they should be more open with their older models such as 3.5, I'm very sure industry insiders actually building these already know the fundamentals of how it works.

An interesting aspect of OpenAI's agreement with Microsft is that, until the point of AGI, Microsoft have IP rights to the tech. I'm not sure exactly what's included in that agreement (model, weights, training data, dev tools?), but it's enough that Nadella at least made brave sounding statements during OpenAI's near implosion that "they had everything" and would not be disrupted if OpenAI were to disappear overnight. I would guess they might have a major disruption in continuing development, but I guess at least the right to carry on using what they've already got access to.

The interesting part of this is that whatever rights Microsoft has do not extend to any OpenAI model/software that is deemed to be AGI, and it seems they must therefore have agreed how this would be determined, which would be interesting to know!

There was a recent interview of Shane Legg (DeepMind co-founder) by Dwarkesh Patel where he gave his own very common sense definition of AGI as being specifically human-level AI, with the emphasis on general. His test for AGI would be to have a diverse suite of human level cognitive tasks (covering the spectrum of human ability), with any system that could pass these tests then being subject to ad hoc additional testing. Any system that not only passed the test suite but also performed at human level on any further challenge tasks might then reasonably be considered to have achieved AGI (per this definition).

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#872

Post by edgyquant »

foofie wrote: post #807
ethanbond wrote: post #783

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why one might create a mechanism, say a non-profit, that has an established, codified mission to combat such obviously foreseeable efforts.

OpenAI clearly rejected Elon Musk's advances and kept him out. Isn't it working already in its current form?

Touch grass

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#873

Post by olalonde »

samatman wrote: post #860
olalonde wrote: post #851

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LLMs can reason. You can verify this empirically by asking questions which require reasoning to e.g. GPT-4.

False. https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.03762

This is not peer reviewed research and has some serious issues: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37051450

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#875

Post by [deleted] »

dang wrote: post #789
honeybadger1 wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

[deleted]

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#876

Post by advael »

pests wrote: post #859
gitaarik wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, you said it made them look bad. Or did you mean that they aren't doing anything bad but are only making it look bad for each other? Edit: sorry, I meant the parent said that. But I guess you understand it now. Edit 2: To be clear, the bad stuff: - OpenAI not really being "open" in any way. - Elon not really caring about that but just wanting to take revenge because they became successful without him.

That's not really "bad stuff" the public would care about IMO, just some internal drama.

Well, if "the public" in any way bought into OpenAI's branding claim that they were a non-profit dedicated to making something for the public benefit, they have a right to feel betrayed

As someone who was watching the brain drain of AI researchers from academia by tech giants before OpenAI was founded, their ethos and initial actual transparency was somewhat inspiring, and the first move to lock up their new frontier model struck me as disappointing and suspicious, and then actively like a betrayal once it came out that it was an exclusive licensing deal with Microsoft.

Maybe members of the public who are less invested in AI research don't feel similarly, but a lot of laypeople seem to suddenly care about AI, including the usual giant swath of techbros that were probably previously working crypto scams becoming really cultish and smug about it, but also non-tech people I know have it on their mind a lot, which is kinda new, and most of these people view it negatively, and almost all of them care because of OpenAI. Frankly your comment makes no sense to me. What are you trying to get at here?

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#877

Post by nickpsecurity »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #836

Just reposting another comment here which has a link to their original, mission statement: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39611908 That mission statement contradicts what I’m reading here. It also contradicts what Anthropic is doing. HuggingFace, TogetherAI, and Mosaic are all executing on the original vision which OpenAI has abandoned. Perhaps the board and regulators should ask those companies’ leaders how to…

Edit to add this comment from Sam Altman from the Slate Star Codex article. Again, it sounds quite opposite of what they’re doing:

“We think the best way AI can develop is if it’s about individual empowerment and making humans better, and made freely available to everyone, not a single entity that is a million times more powerful than any human. Because we are not a for-profit company, like a Google, we can focus not on trying to enrich our shareholders, but what we believe is the actual best thing for the future of humanity.“

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#878

Post by ben_w »

chankstein38 wrote: post #796
hef19898 wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Damage you can do: - propaganda and fake news - deep fakes - slander - porn (revenge and child) - spam - scams - intelectual property theft The list goes on. And for quite a few of those use cases I'd want some guard rails even for a fully on-premise model.

Half of your examples aren't even things an LLM can do and the other half can be written by hand too. I can name a bunch of bad sounding things as well but that doesn't mean any of them have any relevance to the conversation. EDIT: Can't reply but you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. AI is used to create these things, yes. But the question was LLMs which I reiterated. They are not equal. Please read up…

> AI is used to create these things, yes. But the question was LLMs which I reiterated.

And the grandparent of the grandparent of your comment specifically named "Stable Diffusion": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39612886

And text-based porn is still porn.

And it's a distinction without a difference that ChatGPT Pro doesn't strictly create images itself but instead forwards the request to DALL•E.

And the question of guard rails relevant to all AI, not just LLMs.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#879

Post by mort96 »

elif wrote: post #854
mort96 wrote: post #617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh I definitely agree that there's no putting it back into the pandora's box. The technology is here to stay. I have no idea how you imagine "NFTs" will save us though. To me, that sounds like buzzword spam on your part.

An NFT is a way to attribute authorship in a mathematically guaranteed way. If Taylor Swift signs ownership of a picture of her, you can know it is what she presents as real. If Elon musk signs a YouTube video of him offering crypto doubling giveaways, you can know he intended to represent the message as real. If the New York Times publishes an article signed with their key you can know it is meant to be published by…

1) That's just using normal public/private key cryptography to sign messages, there's no need to bring in cryptocurrencies or NFTs

2) Public/private key cryptography would give us a way to verify that a message (or picture or whatever) from Taylor Swift is signed with Swift's private key, but it wouldn't help at all with e.g telling me that I'm responding to a real message and not a bot right now. Not to mention that it wouldn't even help much against deep fakes, since if I publish what I claim to be a secret recording of Swift, there would be no reason to expect her to have signed it with his private key.

Those two are the hallmarks of most of these "legit use cases for cryptocurrencies/NFTs" suggestions I've heard from cryptobros by the way: they're always some combination of "old technology that has nothing to do with cryptocurrencies" and "doesn't actually solve the problem".

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#880

Post by ben_w »

boringg wrote: post #833
habosa wrote: post #716

Regardless of who is right here, I think the enormous egos at play make OpenAI the last company I’d want to develop AGI. First Sam vs. the board, now Elon vs. everyone … it’s pretty clear this company is not in any way being run for the greater good. It’s all ego and money with some good science trapped underneath.

Serious question. Does anyone trust Sam Altman at all anymore? My perspective from the outside is his public reputation is in tatters except that he's tied to Open AI. Im curious what the internal rep is and the greater community?

Yes, me.

At least, I trust him as much as any other foreign[0] CEO.

For all the stuff people complain about him doing, almost none of it matters to me, except for the stuff which isn't proven (such as his sister's allegation) where I would change my mind if evidence was presented. What I don't trust is that Californian ethics don't map well enough onto my ethics, which also applies to basically all of Big Tech…

…but I'm not sure any ethics works too well when examined. A while ago I came up with the idea of "dot product morality"[1] — when I was a kid, "good vs evil" was enough, then I realised there were shades of grey, then I realised someone could be totally moral on one measure (say honesty) and totally immoral on another (say you're a vegan for ethical reasons and they're a meat lover), and I figured we might naturally simplify this inside our own minds my saying another person is "morally aligned" (implicitly: with ourselves) when their ethics vectors are pointing the same way as ours.

But more recently I realised that in a high dimensional space, there's a huge number of ways for vectors to be almost the same and yet 90° apart[2].

[0] I'm not American, so to me he's foreign

[1] I really need to move my blog to github, the only search results on Google are the previous times I posted this to HN: https://kitsunesoftware.wordpress.com/2019/05/25/dot-product...

[2] Via trying to calculate the dot product of two Markov chains: https://github.com/BenWheatley/MarkovChain-Dot-Product-compa...

Post reply on HN