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

211–220 of 678 posts

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#211

Post by llamaimperative »

jdminhbg wrote: post #184
kelseyfrog wrote: post #89

Maybe a weird question, but how does a capitalist economy work where AGI-performed-labor is categorically less expensive than human-performed labor? Do most people who labor for wages just go unemployed, and then bankrupt, and then die?

The way comparative advantage works, even if an AGI is better than me at Task A and Task B, if it is better at Task A than Task B, it'll do Task A and I'll do Task B. I think a lot of people confuse AGI with infinite AGI.

… what

No, you’re confusing finite AGI for an AGI that can only compete with a single person at a time.

In a world of AGI better-than-humans at both A and B, it’s a whole lot cheaper to replicate AGI that’s better at A and B and do both A and B than it is to employ human beings who do B badly.

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#213

Post by yodsanklai »

Dig1t wrote: post #188
lsy wrote: post #58

I guess it's not news but it is pretty wild to see the level of millenarianism espoused by all of these guys. The board of OpenAI is supposedly going to "determine the fate of the world", robotics to be "completely solved" by 2020, the goal of OpenAI is to "avoid an AGI dictatorship". Is nobody in these very rich guys' spheres pushing back on their thought process? So far we are multiple years in with much investment…

I'm going to favorite this thread and come back with a comment in 10 years. I think it will be fun to revisit this conversation. If you really don't think that this line of research and development is leading to AGI then I think you are being hopelessly myopic. >robotics to be "completely solved" by 2020 There are some incredible advances happening _right now_ in robotics largely due to advances in AI. Obviously 2020…

> line of research and development is leading to AGI

What do you mean by AGI exactly? if you want to come back in 10 years to see who's right, at least you should provide some objective criteria so we can decide if the goal has been attained.

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#214

Post by tasuki »

kulahan wrote: post #186
this_user wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When Altman was collecting the award at Cambridge the other year, protesters dropped in on the after-award public talk/Q&A session, and he actively empathised with the protestors. He always does that to give himself cover, but he has clearly shown that his words mean very little in this regard. He always dodges criticism. He used to talk about the importance of him being accountable to the OpenAI board and them bei…

Wasn't he fired for questionable reasons? I thought everyone wanted him back, and that's why he was able to return. It was, as I remember, just the board that wanted him out. I imagine if he was doing something truly nefarious, opinions might have been different, but I have no idea what kind of cult of personality he has at that company, so I might be wrong here.

> I thought everyone wanted him back, and that's why he was able to return.

Everyone working at OpenAI wanted him back. Which only includes people who have a significant motivation to see OpenAI succeed financially.

Also, there are rumours he can be vindictive. For all I know, that might be a smear campaign. But if that were the case, and half the people at OpenAI wanted him back, the other half would have a motivation to follow so as not to get whatever punishment from Sam.

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#215

Post by linotype »

kulahan wrote: post #199
marcosdumay wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Land on Mars is cheap... But no, I really doubt that's all it takes. Unless you discount all of the R&D costs as SpaceX operational expenses.

I imagine that's what he's doing. He's willing to put a lot of company money into getting the city on Mars started, because if he's first there, he's gonna set himself (or his dynasty?) up to make hundreds of billions of dollars. Being effectively in control of your own planet? Neat. Scary too.

Doing what exactly? What industry could Mars possibly support profitably?

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#216

Post by lyu07282 »

ben_w wrote: post #128
lsy wrote: post #58

I guess it's not news but it is pretty wild to see the level of millenarianism espoused by all of these guys. The board of OpenAI is supposedly going to "determine the fate of the world", robotics to be "completely solved" by 2020, the goal of OpenAI is to "avoid an AGI dictatorship". Is nobody in these very rich guys' spheres pushing back on their thought process? So far we are multiple years in with much investment…

> Is nobody in these very rich guys' spheres pushing back on their thought process? Yes, frequently and loudly. When Altman was collecting the award at Cambridge the other year, protesters dropped in on the after-award public talk/Q&A session, and he actively empathised with the protestors . > So far we are multiple years in with much investment and little return, and no obvious large-scale product-market fit, much l…

> foundational assumptions of economics may just stop holding true

Those assumptions are already failing billions of people, some people might still be benefiting from those "assumptions of economics" so they don't see the magnitude of the problem. But just as the billions who suffer now have no power, so will you have no power once those assumptions fail for you too.

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#217

Post by ben_w »

naming_the_user wrote: post #190
ben_w wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is nobody in these very rich guys' spheres pushing back on their thought process? Yes, frequently and loudly. When Altman was collecting the award at Cambridge the other year, protesters dropped in on the after-award public talk/Q&A session, and he actively empathised with the protestors . > So far we are multiple years in with much investment and little return, and no obvious large-scale product-market fit, much l…

> For current standards of what intelligence means, we'd better hope we don't get ASI in the next decade or two, because if and when that happens then "humans need not apply" — and by extension, foundational assumptions of economics may just stop holding true. I'm not sure that we need superintelligence for that to be the case - it may depend on whether you include physical ability in the definition of intelligence.…

While I would certainly expect a radical change to economics even from a middling IQ AI — or indeed a low IQ, as I have previously used the example of IQ 85 because that's 15.9% of the population that would become permanently unable to be economically useful — I don't think it's quite as you say.

Increasing IQ scores seem to allow increasingly difficult tasks to be performed competently — not just the same tasks faster, and also not just "increasingly difficult" in the big-O-notation sense, but it seems like below certain IQ thresholds (or above them but with certain pathologies), some thoughts just aren't "thinkable" even with unbounded time.

While this might simply be an illusion that breaks with computers because silicon outpaces synapses by literally the degree to which jogging outpaces continental drift, I don't see strong evidence at this time for the idea that this is an illusion. We may get that evidence in a very short window, but I don't see it yet.

Therefore, in the absence of full brain uploads, I suspect that higher IQ people may well be able to perform useful work even as lower IQ people are outclassed by AI.

If we do get full brain uploads, then it's the other way around, as a few super-geniuses will get their brains scanned but say it takes a billion dollars a year to run the sim in real time, then Moore's and Koomey's laws will take n years to lower that to $10 million dollars a year, 2n years to lower it to a $100k a year, and 3n years to lower it to $1k/year.

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#218

Post by pixelsort »

wmf wrote: post #153
Barrin92 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By artificially recreating scarcity in virtual space and reproducing the same kind economic dynamic there, what Antonio Negri called 'symbolic production'. Think fashion brands, video game currency, IP, crypto, Clubhouse, effectively the world we're already in. There's an older essay by Zizek somewhere where he points out that this already has played out. Marx was convinced 'general intellect', what we know call the…

Most people have nothing to contribute in the virtual/knowledge realm. Certainly not enough to live on.

Careful, we are not supposed to discuss how many human jobs will remain. The script clearly states the approved lines are "there will still be human jobs" and "focus on being adaptable". When it seems normal that Fortune 500 execs are living at sea on yachts, that's when you'll know OpenAI realized their vision for humanity.

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#219

Post by wmf »

dgrin91 wrote: post #166

dumb question - in one of the emails they mention ICO. What is that? > I have considered the ICO approach and will not support it. ... > I respect your decision on the ICO idea Pretty sure they aren't talking about Initial Coin Offerings. Any clue what they mean?

Altman created Worldcoin so maybe he did mean Initial Coin Offering.
Post reply on HN