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

551–560 of 678 posts

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#551

Post by Aeolun »

strogonoff wrote: post #518
Aeolun wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds to me people working in AI these days have a lot more options than being fraid of a particularly vindictive man.

Between just working on ML tech and working on ML tech with US$XXX billion of Microsoft’s money—salaries aside—imaginably, having access to nuclear plants worth of energy, compute power and cutting edge GPUs, legal department for defending intellectual property violation, etc., makes for a very different value proposition compared to some other startup in the space. (The self-image of working at a company allegedly “…

True to some extend. But if you have OpenAI on your resume I have to imagine there’s no necessity for your next job to be much different (e.g. go to any FAANG)

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#553

Post by ben_w »

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #530
ben_w wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every definition you say? When I was growing up, "very smart" people had a law degree or a medical degree or understood quantum physics and/or relativity (but all three would be silly), or spoke perhaps three or four languages (but thirty would be a joke). They might perhaps also be above average at games of skill like chess, or perhaps could improvise poetry in some specific style (but every style would be a bit o…

> I may not trust ChatGPT's medical diagnosis or legal analysis, but it does pass those exams; It's really, really, really important to note that this could easily just be memorisation (and indeed, the GSM Symbolic paper from Apple suggests that it most likely is). We don't have a good way of assessing the ability of models literally trained on all free text in existence, but comparing their performance based on text…

What I've always disliked about calling it "memorisation" is that we already have machines with much better memorisation than what LLMs do: the hard drives with the source documents.

To the extent that it's able to respond to and with natural language, this is already an improvement over, say, grep or PageRank.

To the extent that it is memorisation in the way we mean when we say a human has memorised something, it's an example of another aspect of what was meant by "intelligence" when I was growing up.

It's definitely weird and alien as an intelligence, but it still ticks the boxes we used to have even a decade ago, 2014, let alone the late 80s to 1999 when I turned 16.

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#554

Post by cinntaile »

chgs wrote: post #543
cinntaile wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because taxis are not cheap enough. Once they become cheap enough, by not having a driver, the equation changes. Travel becomes more convenient.

In a city I don’t take public transport over uber due to the cost but due to the convenience and speed. The only exception is the US, and even then that doesn’t apply in Manhattan.

That's what I'm saying. When price goes down, robotaxis become a more viable option due to convenience and speed. You're shopping? Just put it in the trunk. Have fun with 4 grocery bags on public transport.

Public transport can be faster for going from A to B, but most people live a couple of kms from A and they're not going to exactly B but somewhere in the vicinity. The "last mile" will more likely be by robotaxi.

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#555

Post by kranke155 »

rendang wrote: post #490

The throwaway diss of Blue Origin was pretty funny. The biggest miss from Elon seems to be that he overestimated Google's lead. Did Google really drop the ball on staying in 1st place and if so why?

This has been discussed.

Yes Google - and particularly DeepMind were far ahead when OAI started. They even have the first paper on Transformers I think. But the people who ended up productising the entire thing was OAI because the incentives weren’t there for Google to make ChatGPT.

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#556

Post by parasti »

Melting_Harps wrote: post #498
roca wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"we have reason to believe AGI can ultimately be built with less than $10B in hardware" "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" (2017) "We will completely solve the problem of adversarial examples by the end of August"

> "we have reason to believe AGI can ultimately be built with less than $10B in hardware" As a person who actually builds this infrastructure for Data Centers: Bwahaha!!! This guy should have been laughed out of the room, and probably been out of a job if ANYONE took this guy serious. There are Elon levels of dillusions, and then there is this!

Was he there to make predictions?

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#557

Post by ben_w »

shitloadofbooks wrote: post #412
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…

In my opinion the difference is that a recent graduate knows to say “I don’t know” to questions they’re not sure on, whereas LLMs will extremely confidently and convincingly lie to your face and tell you dangerous nonsense.

My experience is that intellectual humility is a variable, not a universal.

Seen some students very willing to recognise their weaknesses, others who are hamstrung by their hubris. (And not just students, the worst code I've seen in my career generally came from those most certain they're right).

https://phys.org/news/2023-12-teens-dont-acknowledge-fact-ea...

And yes, this is a problem with some LLMs that are trained to always have an answer rather than to acknowledge their uncertainty.

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#558

Post by Yeul »

NetOpWibby wrote: post #134
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."

This made me laugh but also made me think, "...that's it? That's all it takes?"

Lol Apollo took a few percent of America's entire GDP.

Also astronauts were willing to risk their life putting the stars and stripes on the moon I doubt that Musk can inspire the same zeal...

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#559

Post by WickyNilliams »

pembrook wrote: post #227
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…

> no obvious large-scale product-market fit I mean, I know pessimistically "ackshually"-ing yourself into the wrong side of history is kind of Hackernews's thing (eg. that famous dropbox comment). But if you don't think OpenAI found product-market-fit with ChatGPT, then I don't think you understand what product-market-fit is...

There is no killer app (yet). Chat is nice and there's various tools that are useful to devs. But broadly, there is no killer app that makes _everyone_ adopt it and gladly pay for it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_application

Re: Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

#560

Post by johnisgood »

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…

Claude is great, I think Claude 3.5 Sonnet is way better than OpenAI's GPT-4. It understands and follows instructions better, and the context length is larger too. Despite GPT-4 having some context length, too (duh), it often acts as if I started over. It fails at programming for me, and for basic stuff, like "giving movie recommendations without duplicates". If I send it twice or thrice, there will be duplicates despite having it instructed to omit them.

As long as Anthropic does not dumb their own models, they are going to be better than OpenAI, at least for what I use them.

So, in the present, Claude is way more useful to me and I am subscribed. Right now, they do not support text-to-speech and imagine generation, but once they do, I would just completely abandon OpenAI.

> 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".

Given the above, I doubt it is going to be OpenAI at this rate.

It seems better for educational purposes given that it shows you the code with modifications in real-time and you can run Python scripts for example, but that said, I have not tried the "Educational" style for Claude.

Post reply on HN