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

901–910 of 1001 posts

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#901

Post by chankstein38 »

ben_w wrote: post #878
chankstein38 wrote: post #796

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 questi…

If we can change the rules of a discussion midway through, everyone loses. The parent replied to a question "What damage can be done with an llm without guardrails?" (regardless of the grandparent, this is how conversations work, you talk about the thing the other person talked about if you reply to them) and the response was to rattle off a bunch of stuff that LLMs can't do. Yes, they connected an LLM to an image generation AI. No, that doesn't mean "LLMs can generate images" aside from triggering some thing to happen. It's not pedantic or unreasonable to divide the two. The question was blatantly about LLMs.

If y'all want to rant and fear monger about any AI technology, including tech that has existed for years (deepfakes existed well before LLMs were mainstream), do that in a different thread. Don't just force every conversation to be about whatever your mind wants to rant about.

That said, arguing with you people is pointless. You don't even seem to think.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#902

Post by tut-urut-utut »

foofie wrote: post #805
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.

> First Sam vs. the board, now Elon vs. everyone Elon Musk is renowned for being an attention seeker and doing these stunts as a proxy to relevance. It's touring Texas borders wearing a hat backwards, it's messing with Ukraine's access to starlink alongside making statements on geopolitics, it's pretending that he discovered railway and the technology for digging holes in the ground as a silver bullet for transportat…

Ad hominem makes for a damn good argument, especially if the person in case doesn’t try to appease everyone.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#903

Post by tut-urut-utut »

artninja1988 wrote: post #776
codexb wrote: post #775

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and no. Elon has ego, but I also take him at his word when he says he wants to open source AI. He did the same thing with Tesla's patents.

Why isn't gronk open source?

Was it ever promised to be open source?

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#906

Post by theptip »

ClarityJones wrote: post #806
theptip wrote: post #731

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no way OpenAI could have raised $10B as a non-profit.

Would you please try to explain why ?

This would be orders of magnitude more than any charity has ever raised, and is also an uncommonly huge raise even among _for-profit_ companies where investors expect returns.

Even when the EA community was flush with crypto billionaires there was no appetite for this level of spend.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#907

Post by Zambyte »

jmull wrote: post #690
Zambyte wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The comment I was replying to was referencing OpenAIs use of the phrase "the path to AGI". Natural language is an essential interface to AGI, and OpenAI recognizes that. LLMs are a great way to interface with natural language, and OpenAI recognizes that.

While it's kind of nuts how far OpenAI pushed language models, even as an outside observer it's obvious that OpenAI is not banking on LLMs achieving AGI, contrary to what the person I was replying to said. Lots of effort is being put into integrating with outside sources of knowledge (RAG), outside sources for reason / calculation, etc. That's not LLMs as AGI, but it is LLMs as a step on the path to AGI.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#908

Post by gamblor956 »

grecy wrote: post #837
gamblor956 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The for profit entity is owned by the non profit entity. This is permissible and a number of non profits operate this way.

Would you be happy if you donated tens of millions to a non profit entity which then changed their mission and suddenly started making a profit?

1) OpenAI did not change their mission. They are still pursuing AI. They are simply making more money doing it now than they did when they started.

2) Lots of non-profits make a profit. A non-profit is not defined by losing money, it is defined by the nature of what it does with its money, and what parts of its revenue are subject to taxation and what parts are tax-free. For example: the Microsoft contract would have been subject to income tax even if was directly with the OpenAI non-profit entity; moving that to the for-profit subsidiary just simplifies the accounting.

3) I do not think that OpenAI's mission should have ever qualified it for IRC 501(c)(3) status, but the IRS didn't agree and at this point it would be very difficult to challenge the (parent entity)'s non-profit status.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#909

Post by gitaarik »

pests wrote: post #900
gitaarik wrote: post #894

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From all the comments in this threat it seems a lot of people care about it. Of course HN public is specially tech/nerd oriented, but from the popularity here I think it's not crazy to think that non-HN audience would also care.

I really think everyone is over estimating how much people know or care about OpenAI or any of the people involved. Half the country doesn't even understand Instagram is owned by Meta.

Yeah ok, most people won't care, but still a lot of people care, and I think it's good that this kind of information is shared with the public. Maybe it won't have a significant direct impact now, but it will make some people think about the topic, and discuss about it. And in the end, the HN community, who are already involved with this topic, might be actually contain some people that are / will be in positions where this information is very relevant.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#910

Post by nebula8804 »

codexb wrote: post #775
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.

Yes and no. Elon has ego, but I also take him at his word when he says he wants to open source AI. He did the same thing with Tesla's patents.

Didn't the stipulation for the patents require other automakers to share their patents as a condition of using Tesla patents?

"I'd like some of your turkey please and in exchange I will offer this half eaten chicken bone."

Post reply on HN