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

481–490 of 678 posts

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#481

Post by parineum »

famouswaffles wrote: post #369
swatcoder wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> never saw people talking about VR in public, nor NFTs, and the closest I got to seeing blockchain in public were adverts, not hearing random people around me chatting about it. The only people I ever saw in real life talking about self-driving cars were the ones I was talking to myself, and everyone else was dismissive of them. Voice assistants were mainly mocked from day 1, with the Alex advert being re-dubbed as…

I mean nobody needs to bother with anecdotes here. chatgpt.com hit 3.7B visits in October and was #8 in worldwide internet traffic. Open AI say they have 300M weekly active users and 1B messages per day . The idea that it's some fad with no utility or that the general public knows little about it is at this point laughable. It's the software product with by far the fastest adoption any software product has ever seen.…

> I mean nobody needs to bother with anecdotes here. chatgpt.com hit 3.7B visits in October and was #8 in worldwide internet traffic. Open AI say they have 300M weekly active users and 1B messages per day.

As far as the "zeitgeist" conversation goes, though, there's one story in the non-tech news about AI right now and it isn't how it's making everyone's life easier. It's, yet again, a story about how someone trusted it and got burned because the markov chain landed on something not true.

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#482

Post by parineum »

tim333 wrote: post #285
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…

>people will move on to the next fad AI isn't really a fad. It's going to something more like electricity, say.

People have been saying that for a few years now. I've been using it as a very advanced autocomplete while coding for that time and not much else.

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#484

Post by manquer »

mlyle wrote: post #421
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…

> despite how far it has come it cannot in next 30 years be ubiquitous, even if the l5 magic tech exists today in every new car sold it will take 15 years for current cars to lifecycle. We must have a different meaning of ubiquitous. Ubiquitous means "found everywhere" not "has eliminated everything else." You don't even need to cycle the fleet once to meet the definition of ubiquitous. If you can get a self driving…

I considered fleet change as the transformation that eliminates driving as a needed skill .

Getting a slightly better version of Waymo in SF is just augmenting for a poor public transit with a very American car solution .

It scales pretty poorly and cannot replace good public transit, at best can augment them as last mile connectivity .

There is value to those of course and is disruptive to a sector, it is still a specific use case and not world changing. You are only disrupting the taxi industry not driving itself .

The claims at the time was not we are going replace taxis with robotaxis , but driving itself will be a thing of the past. That is the nature of hype cycles .

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#485

Post by manquer »

result2vino wrote: post #314
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…

> 2 years before it was VR, few years before that NFTs and blockchain everything Are you so deep in the SV tech echo chamber that you can’t distinguish between tech bro / snake oil salesman hype and something that actual normal people are engaged by? The only people talking about NFTs in a non-disparaging way were delusional in large part because they themselves bought into it wanted to egg others on. NFTs were just…

I am sorry, every A-List celebrity was shilling a NFT project, from superbowl to other public spheres of discourse seemed all crypto. The future president of the country has a crypto project to sell, I don’t see how much mainstream it can get.

Yes, There is close connection to SV hype cycle and what happens in mainstream, most mainstream ones originate in SV but the ones I mentioned specifically impacted the larger public not just SV tech sphere

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#486

Post by jillesvangurp »

sebzim4500 wrote: post #289
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…

>and no obvious large-scale product-market fit I'm afraid you are in as much an echo chamber as anyone. 200 million+ weekly active users is large scale pmf

Exactly. There's plenty of return on investment. Knowledge workers around the world are paying nice subscription fees for access to the best models just to do their work. There are hundreds of millions of daily active users already. And those are just the early adopters. Lots of people are still in denial about that they need this to do their work very soon. Countless software companies pay for API access to these models as well. As they add capabilities, the market only becomes larger.

OpenAI is one of a handful of companies that is raking in lots of cash here. And they've barely scratched the surface. It's only a few years ago that Chat GPT was first released. OpenAI is well funded, has lots of revenue, and lots of technology coming up that looks like it's going to increase demand for their services.

There's a very obvious product market fit.

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#487

Post by Fnords »

Timber-6539 wrote: post #473
monetus wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> shown that corrupt intelligence agencies were directly influencing Twitter's censorship That is a hyperbolic way of saying the fbi used the report feature everyone has access to when worried about domestic terrorism along the lines of the Oklahoma City bombing. Not exactly government censorship - not a potato potahto thing.

It doesn't sound exactly ridiculous when Zuckerberg also admitted those same intelligence agencies pressured them into censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story.

That's so absurdly far from what Zuck said it's an outright lie.

"Zuckerberg told Rogan: "The background here is that the FBI came to us - some folks on our team - and was like 'hey, just so you know, you should be on high alert. We thought there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election, we have it on notice that basically there's about to be some kind of dump that's similar to that'." He said the FBI did not warn Facebook about the Biden story in particular - only that Facebook thought it "fit that pattern".

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#488

Post by wholeneptune »

Arkhaine_kupo wrote: post #264
adabyron wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He bought Twitter for $40B. His Tesla stock was 0% ytd until the election. Post election it is up roughly 70% ytd & has paid for Twitter & the Mars colony multiple times. Hard to say if that happens without him owning Twitter.

> Hard to say if that happens without him owning Twitter. Its fairly easy. In almost every western country the incumbent administration has been punished by voters due to inflation, this has been the case in the uk, germany, romania, france, mexico... list goes on. So Trump could have won without Elon buying twitter. Similarly he could have donated to Trump without buying Twitter, and been on stage and been all day o…

The ironic part is, Elon's own attorney, Alex Spiro, represented $100 million in BHR (China) shares for Hunter Biden. Alex also tried to save Jim Baker's job (FBI official) at Twitter, which is why Alex was removed. Those BHR shares are now controlled by Hunter's Malibu attorney.

Alex's law firm was able to get this story removed in 1-day from The Sun. But it's true, Alex's passport is online due to this deal-

http://archive.today/InaZQ

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#489

Post by tsimionescu »

lupire wrote: post #451
bee_rider wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consciousness is a stupid and unreasonable goal, it is basically impossible to confirm that a machine isn’t just faking it really well. Singularity is at least definable…Although I think it is not really the bar required to be really impactful. If we get an AI system that can do the work of like 60% of hardcore knowledge workers, 80% of office workers, and 95% of CEOs/politicians and other pablumists, it could be rea…

Those numbers are approximately zero, because demand will immediately 10x as soon as AI makes that affordable, as computers have always done. So, profitable (if the AI can cost less than a human for the work), but not changing how the economy works

If white collar jobs get automated away to the extent that blue collar jobs were in the industrial revolution, that will be, by definition, a massive upheaval of the economy.
Post reply on HN