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

981–990 of 1001 posts

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#981

Post by sausse »

lewhoo wrote: post #834
sausse wrote: post #828

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, if you presume organic propaganda is analogous to the level of danger driving within limit. But a car going into a stroller at 150mph versus 200mph is negligible. The democratization of generative AI would increase the number of bad agents, but with it would come a better awareness of their tactics; perhaps we push less strollers into the intersections known for drag racing.

> But a car going into a stroller at 150mph versus 200mph is negligible. I guess when you distort every argument to an absurd you can claim you're right. > but with it would come a better awareness of their tactics I don't follow. Are you saying new and more sophisticated ways to scam people are actually good because we have a unique chance to know how they work ?

It’s not absurd. The bottleneck for additional predation is not the available toolkit, else we’d see a more obvious correlation between a society’s resource endowment and its callousness.

Handwringing over the threat of AI without substantiating an argument beside “enabled volume” is just self-righteousness.

AI isn’t posed to shift the balance of MFA versus phishers in a way that can’t be meaningfully corrected in the short and long term, so using “scamming” as a means to oppose disseminating tech feels reductive at best.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#982

Post by lewhoo »

sausse wrote: post #981
lewhoo wrote: post #834

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But a car going into a stroller at 150mph versus 200mph is negligible. I guess when you distort every argument to an absurd you can claim you're right. > but with it would come a better awareness of their tactics I don't follow. Are you saying new and more sophisticated ways to scam people are actually good because we have a unique chance to know how they work ?

It’s not absurd. The bottleneck for additional predation is not the available toolkit, else we’d see a more obvious correlation between a society’s resource endowment and its callousness. Handwringing over the threat of AI without substantiating an argument beside “enabled volume” is just self-righteousness. AI isn’t posed to shift the balance of MFA versus phishers in a way that can’t be meaningfully corrected in th…

> It’s not absurd.

It is, because I wasn't directly comparing AI to traffic but only reaching for an example to illustrate how irrelevant is the case whether the threat is something completely unique or not.

> Handwringing over the threat of AI without substantiating an argument beside “enabled volume” is just self-righteousness.

Dismissing it as "meh, not new" is plain silliness.

> AI isn’t posed to shift the balance of MFA versus phishers in a way that can’t be meaningfully corrected

What on Earth makes you think that ? The beautiful way we're handling scams right now ? If you think it's irrelevant that phishing via phone call can now or soon be fully automated and the attack may even be conducted using a copy of someone's voice - well, we won't get anywhere here.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#983

Post by sausse »

lewhoo wrote: post #982
sausse wrote: post #981

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not absurd. The bottleneck for additional predation is not the available toolkit, else we’d see a more obvious correlation between a society’s resource endowment and its callousness. Handwringing over the threat of AI without substantiating an argument beside “enabled volume” is just self-righteousness. AI isn’t posed to shift the balance of MFA versus phishers in a way that can’t be meaningfully corrected in th…

> It’s not absurd. It is, because I wasn't directly comparing AI to traffic but only reaching for an example to illustrate how irrelevant is the case whether the threat is something completely unique or not. > Handwringing over the threat of AI without substantiating an argument beside “enabled volume” is just self-righteousness. Dismissing it as "meh, not new" is plain silliness. > AI isn’t posed to shift the balanc…

It’s already automated, you don’t need AI/ML to perform mass-phishing attempts. LDo you think there’s someone manually-dialing you every time you get a spam call?

The way we mitigate scams today definitely encourages me; the existence of victims does not imply the failure or inadequacy of safeguards keeping up with technology.

While AI stokes the imagination, it’s not so inspiring that I can make the argument in my head for you about why humanity’s better off with access to these tools being kept in the hands of corporations that repeatedly get sued for placing profits over public welfare.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#984

Post by mhh__ »

WalterBright wrote: post #375
danans wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What has failed are completely "collectivist" or "individualist" societies. Societies that balance the two (like the post WWII US) are the ones that have advanced their standard of living the most.

The US became a superpower long before WW2. The US was the deciding factor in WW1, and the Germans were shocked at how well-fed and well-equipped the US soldiers were, even with having to ship everything across the ocean. The US saw the most spectacular rise in the standard of living from 1800 up to WW2 the world had ever seen. This was all due to the free market, not collectivism. During WW2, the US supplied its all…

I think Hegel (not sure) commented that the next century would be that of the USA and Russia on his deathbed (i.e. early 1800s) or something to that effect

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#985

Post by BriggyDwiggs42 »

Zambyte wrote: post #585
BriggyDwiggs42 wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The underlying premise that llms are capable of fully generalizing to a human level across most domains, i assume?

Where did you get that from? It seems pretty clear to me that language models are intended to be a component in a larger suite of software, composed to create AGI. See: DALL-E and Whisper for existing software that it composes with.

The comment said that LLMs are the path to AGI, which implies at least that they’re a huge part of the AGI soup you’re talking about. I could maybe see agi emerging from lots of llms and other tools in a huge network, but probably not from an llm with calculators hooked up to it.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#986

Post by theptip »

ClarityJones wrote: post #973
theptip wrote: post #906

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> more than any charity has ever raised The Novo Nordisk foundation has a $120 Billion endowment, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has $50 Billion, the Welcome Trust has $42 Billion, ... There are about 19 charities that still have more than $10 Billion, let alone those who have raised (and spent) that during their existence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_charitable_... > an uncommonly huge rais…

I stand corrected, as stated my claim about charity OOM was wrong. Still, I don’t think I need to update much.

Because:

> So, offer a return on investment

This is precisely what they did; Microsoft’s investment is an extremely funky capped profit structure. They did it this way to minimize their cost of capital.

I’m not really clear what your concrete proposal is for raising $10b as a non-profit, perhaps you could flesh that out?

If you’re talking about financing a potentially decade- long project on tens of billions of dollars of pure debt, again that is… not a feasible structure.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#987

Post by lewhoo »

sausse wrote: post #983
lewhoo wrote: post #982

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s not absurd. It is, because I wasn't directly comparing AI to traffic but only reaching for an example to illustrate how irrelevant is the case whether the threat is something completely unique or not. > Handwringing over the threat of AI without substantiating an argument beside “enabled volume” is just self-righteousness. Dismissing it as "meh, not new" is plain silliness. > AI isn’t posed to shift the balanc…

It’s already automated, you don’t need AI/ML to perform mass-phishing attempts. LDo you think there’s someone manually-dialing you every time you get a spam call? The way we mitigate scams today definitely encourages me; the existence of victims does not imply the failure or inadequacy of safeguards keeping up with technology. While AI stokes the imagination, it’s not so inspiring that I can make the argument in my h…

> It’s already automated, you don’t need AI/ML to perform mass-phishing attempts. LDo you think there’s someone manually-dialing you every time you get a spam call?

Ok, now you're being just stubborn. No, no one is manually dialing your number but as soon as the scammer knows you've answered you get to talk to a human who tries to convince you to install a "safety" app for your bank or something. THAT part isn't automated, but it may as well be, which means phishing calls and scams can potentially be done with a multiplication factor of hundreds, maybe thousands - limited only by scammer infrastructure.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#989

Post by KoolKat23 »

philwelch wrote: post #915
KoolKat23 wrote: post #893

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, at their core though, those aren't environmental at their heart but rather something else green-washed, be it corruption, subsidisation or something else.

Or sometimes the regulators make mistakes. Good intentions are no guarantee of good outcomes.

True.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#990

Post by ClarityJones »

theptip wrote: post #986
ClarityJones wrote: post #973

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> more than any charity has ever raised The Novo Nordisk foundation has a $120 Billion endowment, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has $50 Billion, the Welcome Trust has $42 Billion, ... There are about 19 charities that still have more than $10 Billion, let alone those who have raised (and spent) that during their existence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_charitable_... > an uncommonly huge rais…

I stand corrected, as stated my claim about charity OOM was wrong. Still, I don’t think I need to update much. Because: > So, offer a return on investment This is precisely what they did; Microsoft’s investment is an extremely funky capped profit structure. They did it this way to minimize their cost of capital. I’m not really clear what your concrete proposal is for raising $10b as a non-profit, perhaps you could fl…

> I’m not really clear what your concrete proposal is for raising $10b as a non-profit, perhaps you could flesh that out?

OpenAI, Inc. (the nonprofit) could have partnered with Microsoft directly.

To be fair, maybe Microsoft may have required that certain code be kept secret in a way that OpenAI's charitable purpose would not have allowed. However, that would just suggest that the deal was not open and not in the best interests of the charity.

Moreover, I'm skeptical that OpenAI Global LLC paid fair market value to OpenAI, Inc. for the assets it received. Sure, the GPT-2 itself was open sourced, but a lot of the value of the business lied in other things: all of the datasets that were used, the history of training, what worked and what didn't work, the accessory utilities, emails, documents / memos, the brand, etc. The staff is a little tricky, because - sure - they are ostensibly free to leave, but there's no doubt there's a ton of value in the staff.

If OpenAI, Inc. (non-profit) put itself on the open market with the proceeds to go to another charity, what do you think Microsoft would have paid to buy the business? I bet it would have been a lot more than OpenAI Global LLC paid to OpenAI, Inc for the same assets...

Post reply on HN