Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit • Hacker News Board

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#431

Post by spprashant » Sat, Dec 14, 2024, 2:03 AM UTC

fallingknife wrote: post #383

I_am_tiberius wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For additional context: These PayPal guys are very much contra Google and YC (Sam/pg).

I know Elon fucked Brin's wife and is currently fighting with Altman over the OpenAI fortune, but is there actually any broader beef there?

Sacks and PG don't see eye to eye. There is some beef there. PG is a big Altman supporter. To be fair he also thinks highly of Musk as a founder, but does not agree with his politics.

It would seem to me, there is larger rift developing in SV between the YC clique and the AllIn podcast gang.

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#432

Post by johnnyanmac » Sat, Dec 14, 2024, 2:06 AM UTC

samvher wrote: post #265

ben_w wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

745 of 770 employees responded on a weekend to call for his return, threatened mass resignations if the board did not resign; among the signatories was board member Sutskever, who defected from the board and publicly apologized for his participation in the board's previous actions.

I followed the drama. The point I was (somewhat unsuccessfully) trying to make was that while, sure, there were groups who wanted him back (mainly the groups with vested financial interests and associated leverage), my sense was that the way it played out was not necessarily in line with wider humanity's best interest, i.e. as would have been hoped based on OpenAI's publicly stated goals.

>my sense was that the way it played out was not necessarily in line with wider humanity's best interest,

Sure. But you make the foolish assumption here that humanity even has humanity's best interests at heart. Sentiment may be negative on current LLM generative based AI, but there's still plenty of people with either potential vested interests or simply seeing missing the forest for the tree. It's pretty hard to say "everyone hates/loves AI" at this current time.

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#433

Post by zookerterg » Sat, Dec 14, 2024, 2:07 AM UTC

[dead]

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#434

Post by shkkmo » Sat, Dec 14, 2024, 2:07 AM UTC

freedomben wrote: post #72

nativeit wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What you are missing is the context of this phrase. It is almost exclusively used when talking about two entities are already competitors.

Some of your confusion may come because this phrase is intended neither as a statement of fact, nor a course of suggested action. It is instead a rhetorical flourish intended to imply that one company has a subpar product and is using the legal system to make up for that.

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#435

Post by CamperBob2 » Sat, Dec 14, 2024, 2:08 AM UTC

dingnuts wrote: post #310

foooorsyth wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s the fastest product to 100m users ever. Even if they never update their models from here on out, they have an insanely popular and useful product. It’s better at search than Google. Students use it universally. And programmers are dependent on it. Inference is cheap — only training is expensive. To say they don’t have PMF is nuts.

>It’s better at search than Google in what world? what it's good at is suggesting things to search, because half of what it outputs is incorrect, so you have to verify everything anyway it does, slightly, improve search, but it's an addition, not a replacement.

Two years ago half of what it output was incorrect. One year ago, maybe 30% of what it output was incorrect. Currently, maybe 20% of what it tells you is incorrect.

It's getting better. Google, on the other hand, is unequivocally getting worse.

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#436

Post by pixelsort » Sat, Dec 14, 2024, 2:09 AM UTC

selimthegrim wrote: post #252

pixelsort wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would think certain recent events in New York will probably be a bigger impetus for Fortune 500 execs living at sea on yachts

We might have fewer future vigilante executive assassins if our government, and FTC in particular, would deem to enact consumer protections against things like AI-based medical claims recommendations that go beyond initial triage/routing to human handlers.

We're going to continue watching the rapid AI-driven annihilation of the demand for human customer support specialists. They are just the first major rung of the ladder to fall.

Without protections, even UBI, it's hard to imagine things getting safer for anyone.

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#437

Post by agnosticmantis » Sat, Dec 14, 2024, 2:09 AM UTC

samatman wrote: post #419

agnosticmantis wrote: post #297

It's amusing how Sutskever kept musking Musk over the years (overpromising with crazy deadlines and underdelivering): In 2017 he wrote "Within the next three years, robotics should be completely solved, AI should solve a long-standing unproven theorem, programming competitions should be won consistently by AIs, and there should be convincing chatbots (though no one should pass the Turing test)." "We will completely s…

This month, a computer solved the first Advent of Code challenge in eight seconds. Everyone on Hacker News was saying "well of course, you can't just feed it to a chatbot, that's cheating! the leaderboard is a human competition!" because we've normalized that. It's not surprising, it's just obvious, oh yeah you can't have an Advent of Code competition if the computers get to play as well. Granted it took seven years.…

I think the achievements in the past couple of years are astonishing, bordering on magic.

Yet, confidently promising AGI/self-driving/mars landing in the next couple of years over and over when the confidence is not justified makes you a conman by definition.

If the number 3 means nothing and can become 7 or 17 or 170 why keep pulling these timelines out of their overconfident asses?

Did we completely solve robotics or prove a longstanding theorem in 2020? No. So we should lose confidence in their baseless predictions.

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#438

Post by johnnyanmac » Sat, Dec 14, 2024, 2:13 AM UTC

sneak wrote: post #359

manquer wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The product market fit is fantastic. This isn't the first time I've heard random strangers discussing it in public. Hardly the evidence of PMF. There is always something new in the zeitgeist, that every one is talking about, some more so than others . 2 years before it was VR, few years before that NFTs and blockchain everything, before that it was self driving cars before that personal voice assistants like Siri a…

Did you really just compare the thing that makes me able to code and ship 5x faster to... NFTs?

really depends on the kind of AI. If I said I shipped a AI-genned game 5x faster , then people would indeed compare it to NFTs.

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#439

Post by yazzku » Sat, Dec 14, 2024, 2:16 AM UTC

averageRoyalty wrote: post #183

ronsor wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OpenAI is an American company

And they intend to "determine the fate of the world". As such, communication shouldn't be American centric.

You're several decades late for that. Almost a century now.

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#440

Post by agnosticmantis » Sat, Dec 14, 2024, 2:17 AM UTC

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #413

agnosticmantis wrote: post #196

From Musk's email: "Frankly, what surprises me is that the AI community is taking this long to figure out concepts. It doesn’t sound super hard. High-level linking of a large number of deep nets sounds like the right approach or at least a key part of the right approach." Genuine question I've always had is, are these charlatans conscious of how full of shit they are, or are they really high on their own stuff? Also…

Amongst people who think probabilistically, this isn't a weird statement. It's a very low precision guestimate. There is a qualitative difference between 50-50, 90-10, 99-1 etc, and it's only their best guess anyway.

Just because you can generate numbers between 0 and 1 doesn't make them meaningful probabilities.

Are these based on data? No, they're rhetorical tools used to sound quantitative and scientific.

Nobody will be applying the calculus of probability to these meaningless numbers coming out of someone's ass.

And most importantly, is he himself willing to bet a significant fraction of his fortune based on these socalled probabilities? I don't think so. So they're not probabilities.