321–330 of 644 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah the GP's point is the board was acting within its purview by dismissing the CEO. The coup was the successful counter-campaign against the board by Altman and the investors.
Let's be honest: in large part by Microsoft.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, that question is one of the suggested questions that OpenAI shows themselves in the UI, for the o1-preview model. (Together with 'Is a hot dog a sandwich?', which I confess I will have to ask it now.)
If you have a sandwich and cut it in half, do you have one or two sandwiches?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(negative)
See Non-dualistic meaning section.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's easy to have missed this part of the story in all the chaos, but from the NYTimes in March: Ms. Murati wrote a private memo to Mr. Altman raising questions about his management and also shared her concerns with the board. That move helped to propel the board’s decision to force him out. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/07/technology/openai-executi... It should be no surprise if Sam Altman wants executives who opp…
Greg Brockman, OpenAI President and co-founder is also on extended leave of absence. And John Schulman, and Peter Deng are out already. Yet the company is still shipping, like no other. Recent multimodal integrations and benchmarks of o1 are outstanding.
> we fundamentally changed how AI systems learn and reason through complex problems I'm not an AI researcher, have they done this? The commentary I've seen on o1 is basically that they incorporated techniques that were already being used. I'd also be curious to learn: what fundamental contributions to research has OpenAI made? The ChatGPT that was released in 2022 was based on Google's research, and IMO the internal…
This suggests they have either: made substantial breakthroughs, that are not open, or that the better abilities of OpenAI products are due to non-substantial tweaks (more training, better prompting, etc).
I'm not sure either of these options is great for the original mission of OpenAI, although given their direction to "Closed-AI" I guess the former would be better for them.
If OpenAI is the foremost in solving the AGI - possibly the biggest invention of mankind - it's a little weird that everyone's dropping out. Does it not look like that no one wants to work with Sam in the long run?
Open AI fired her. She didn't drop out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
$10M is never work again money literally anywhere in the world. Don't kid yourself. Buy a $3.5M house outright and then collect $250k per year risk free after taxes. You're doing whatever you want and still saving money.
The problem is if you are the type of person able to get to $10M, you'll probably want more, since the motivation that got you there in the first place will keep you unsatisfied with anything less. You'll constantly crave for more in terms of magnitudes.
Of course there are some who want $100M.
But most are really happy that they most likely don’t ever have to do anything they don’t like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really. I think actually the best use case for LLMs is "explainer". When combined with RAG, it's fantastic at taking a complex corpus of information and distilling it down into more digestible summaries.
Can you share an example of a use case you have in mind of this "explainer + RAG" combo you just described? I think that RAG and RAG-based tooling around LLMs is gonna be the clear way forward for most companies with a properly constructed knowledge base but I wonder what you mean by "explainer"?. Are you talking about asking an LLM something like "in which way did the teams working on project X deal with Y problem?"…
Some trials have their protocols published.
Here's an example trial: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06613256
And here's the protocol: https://cdn.clinicaltrials.gov/large-docs/56/NCT06613256/Pro... It's actually relatively short at 33 pages. Some larger trials (especially oncology trials) can have protocols that are 200 pages long.
One of the big challenges with clinical trials is making this information more accessible to both patients (for informed consent) and the trial site staff (to avoid making mistakes, helping answer patient questions, even asking the right questions when negotiating the contract with a sponsor).
The gist of it here is exactly like you said: RAG to pull back the relevant chunks of a complex document like this and then LLM to explain and summarize the information in those chunks that makes it easier to digest. That response can be tuned to the level of the reader by adding simple phrases like "explain it to me at a high school level".
It is hard for me to square "This company is a few short years away from building world-changing AGI" and "I'm stepping away to do my own thing". Maybe I'm just bad at putting myself in someone else's shoes, but I feel like if I had spent years working towards a vision of AGI, and thought that success was finally just around the corner, it'd be very difficult to walk away.
I don't know her personal life or her feelings, but it doesn't seem like a stretch to imagine that she was just done.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is hard for me to square "This company is a few short years away from building world-changing AGI" Altmans quote was that "it's possible that we will have superintelligence in a few thousand days", which sounds a lot more optimistic on the surface than it actually is. A few thousand days could be interpreted as 10 years or more, and by adding the "possibly" qualifier he didn't even really commit to that predicti…
OpenAI is a Microsoft play to get into power generation business, specifically nuclear, which is a pet interest of Bill Gates for many years. There, that's my conspiracy theory quota for 2024 in one comment.