Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 678 posts

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#71

Post by nativeit »

hipadev23 wrote: post #42
vineyardmike wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s certainly in response to Elon getting more involved in the government. Recently the CFO basically challenged him to try and use his influence against competition “I trust that Elon would act completely appropriately… and not un-American [by abusing his influence for personal gain]”. The best thing they can do is shine as much light on his behavior in the hope that he backs down to avoid further scrutiny. Now tha…

> Now that Elon is competing, and involved with the government, he’ll be under a lot more scrutiny. That's the cutest fucking thing I've heard this year. In what world is anyone going to scrutinize Elon Musk? He's the right-hand man of the most powerful person in the world. The time for scrutiny was 8 years ago.

Scrutiny: noun critical observation or examination

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#72

Post by freedomben »

nativeit wrote: post #66
freedomben wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree, he is doing both. But if he's competing in the marketplace, it seems pretty off base for Open AI to tell him he should be competing in the marketplace. So I think my criticism stands.

I don’t think their suggestion ever implies that he isn’t.

If the believed he already was competing in the marketplace, then what would be the point of saying "he should be competing in the marketplace rather than the courtroom." ? I'm genuinely trying to understand what I'm missing here because it seems illogical to tell someone they should do something they are already doing.

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#73

Post by bravetraveler »

pram wrote: post #49
AlanYx wrote: post #34

Ignoring all the drama, this part is interesting: "On one call, Elon told us he didn’t care about equity personally but just needed to accumulate $80B for a city on Mars."

Measured another way, just a bit under 2 Twitters.

Town squares go a lot further than I imagined

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#74

Post by colechristensen »

talldayo wrote: post #38
colechristensen wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of these days if AGI ever does actually come about, we might very well have to go to war with them. There might be a day where billionaires employ zero humans and themselves merge with the AGI in a way that makes them not quite human any more. The amount of data being collected about everyone and what machine learning can already do with it is frightening. I'm afraid the reaction to AI when it actually becomes a…

> One of these days if AGI ever does actually come about, we might very well have to go to war with them. And the same conditions of material wealth that dictate traditional warfare will not be changed by the ChatGPT for Warlords subscription. This entire conversation is silly and predicated on beliefs that cannot be substantiated or delineated logically. You (and the rest of the AI preppers) are no different than th…

Robot soldiers is a today problem. You want a gun or a bomb on a drone with facial recognition that could roam the skies until it finds you and destroys it's target?

That's a weekend project for a lot of people around here.

You don't need AGI for a lot of these things.

We are not far away from an entire AI corporation.

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#77

Post by talldayo »

bobthebuilders wrote: post #53
talldayo wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One of these days if AGI ever does actually come about, we might very well have to go to war with them. And the same conditions of material wealth that dictate traditional warfare will not be changed by the ChatGPT for Warlords subscription. This entire conversation is silly and predicated on beliefs that cannot be substantiated or delineated logically. You (and the rest of the AI preppers) are no different than th…

The rules of traditional warfare will still exist, they will just be fought by advanced hyper intelligent AIs instead of humans. Hunter Miller humanoids like Optimus and drones like Anduril will replace humans in war. War will be the same, but the rich are preparing to unleash a "new arsenal of democracy" against us in an AI takeover. We must be prepared.

> Hunter Miller humanoids like Optimus and drones like Anduril will replace humans in war.

You do not understand how war is fought if you sincerely believe this. Battles aren't won with price tags and marketing videos, they're won with strategic planning and tactical effect. The reason why the US is such a powerful military is not because we field so much materiel, but because each materiel is so effective. Many standoff-range weapons are automated and precise within feet or even inches of the target; failure rates are lower than 98% in most cases. These are weapons that won't get replaced by drones, and it's why Anduril also produces cruise-missiles and glide bombs in recognition that their drones aren't enough.

Serious analysts aren't taking drones seriously, it's a consensus among everyone that isn't Elon Musk. Drones in Ukraine are used in extreme short-range combat (often less than 5km in range from each other), and often require expending several units before landing a good hit. These are improvised munitions of last resort, not a serious replacement for antitank guided weaponry. It's a fallacy on the level of comparing an IED to a shaped-charge landmine.

> but the rich are preparing to unleash a "new arsenal of democracy" against us in an AI takeover

The rich have already taken over with the IMF. You don't need AI to rule the world if you can get them addicted to a dollar standard and then make them indebted to your infinite private capital. China does it, Russia does it... the playbook hasn't changed. Even if you make a super-AI as powerful as a nuke, you suffer from the same problem that capitalism is a more devastating weapon.

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#79

Post by xiphias2 »

rvz wrote: post #70
akira2501 wrote: post #10

[flagged]

> Neither of you have anything even _approaching_ AGI. There are so many conflicting definitions of what "AGI" means. Not even OpenAI or Microsoft even knows what it means. "AGI" is a scam.

Of course it's clear: AGI is achieved when a machine can completely capable of simulating a human being.

At that point remote / office work is 100% over.

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#80

Post by dboreham »

colechristensen wrote: post #33
akira2501 wrote: post #10

[flagged]

One of these days if AGI ever does actually come about, we might very well have to go to war with them. There might be a day where billionaires employ zero humans and themselves merge with the AGI in a way that makes them not quite human any more. The amount of data being collected about everyone and what machine learning can already do with it is frightening. I'm afraid the reaction to AI when it actually becomes a…

Like Jonny Depp in that movie.
Post reply on HN