111–120 of 339 posts
Loved the lone footnote defining their view of AGI: > A highly autonomous system that outperforms humans at most economically valuable work Holy goalposts shift, batman! This is much broader and much less than what I’d been led to believe from statements by this company, including by altman himself.
Loved the lone footnote defining their view of AGI: > A highly autonomous system that outperforms humans at most economically valuable work Holy goalposts shift, batman! This is much broader and much less than what I’d been led to believe from statements by this company, including by altman himself.
I think that's been their working definition of AGI for awhile, actually.
A cursory search yields stuff like this:
https://www.theverge.com/2024/12/4/24313130/sam-altman-opena...
Used car salesman promises to save humanity. What a bunch of pompous twits. In other news, one of OpenAI's top talents, and first author on the GPT-1 paper, Alec Radford, left a few days ago to pursue independent research. In additional other news, Microsoft and OpenAI have now reportedly agreed on a joint definition of relationship-ending AGI as "whatever makes $100B". Not kidding.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone has a price, is this meant to be shocking? I mean, I’m disappointed… but I’d have been far more surprised if they’d stood fast with the philanthropic mission once world-changing money was on the table.
No, not everyone has a price. Obviously anecdotal but I have met some truly passionate people in real life who wouldn't compramise their values. Humanity has not lost just yet. (I would say the same about some people who I haven't personally met, but it would be speculation)
Maybe I’m missing it in this article or elsewhere on the website, but how exactly is OpenAI’s vision of making AGI going to “benefit humanity as as a whole”? I’m not asking to be snarky or imply any hidden meaning…I just don’t see how they plan on getting from A to B. From this recent press release the answer seems to be: make ChatGPT really good and offer it for free to people to use. Which is a reasonable answer, I…
Once OpenAI becomes fabulously rich, the world will surely be transformed, and then the benefits of all this concentration of power will simply trickle down.
I don't understand why they are spending so much time and effort trying to put a positive spin on this whole for-profit thing. No one is buying it. We all know what's going on. Just say "we want to make lots of money" and move on with your lives.
"We are turning our non profit into a for profit because we want to make money" isn't legal. To make this transition in a way that maximizes how much money they can make while minimizing what they lose to lawsuits they need to explain what they're doing in a positive way.
I don't understand why they are spending so much time and effort trying to put a positive spin on this whole for-profit thing. No one is buying it. We all know what's going on. Just say "we want to make lots of money" and move on with your lives.
Do they? It reads like a very average PR piece that an average PR person can write.
Maybe I’m missing it in this article or elsewhere on the website, but how exactly is OpenAI’s vision of making AGI going to “benefit humanity as as a whole”? I’m not asking to be snarky or imply any hidden meaning…I just don’t see how they plan on getting from A to B. From this recent press release the answer seems to be: make ChatGPT really good and offer it for free to people to use. Which is a reasonable answer, I…
> but how exactly is OpenAI’s vision of making AGI going to “benefit humanity as as a whole”? Considering their definition of AGI is “makes a lot of money”, it’s not going to—and was never designed to—benefit anyone else. https://techcrunch.com/2024/12/26/microsoft-and-openai-have-... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjQUCpeJG1Y What else could we have expected from someone who made yet another cryptocurrency scam? ht…
We're basically betting our species' future on these guys failing, because for a short period of time there's a massive amount of shareholder value to be made.
Sam Altman is evil fullstop. He is a pure machiavellian villain. His goal is to the most powerful person on the planet. The future cannot be controlled by him or other autistic human successionists.
I don't understand why they are spending so much time and effort trying to put a positive spin on this whole for-profit thing. No one is buying it. We all know what's going on. Just say "we want to make lots of money" and move on with your lives.
I think often company spin like this is more targeted towards internal employees than the outside world. Employees on the inside are always going to have a decent percentage of “true believers” who have cognitive dissonance if they don’t believe they’re making the world better. And so companies need to provide a narrative to keep that type of employee happy.
People of all stripes are extremely willing to embrace ideas that justify their own personal benefit. A rich person might be more likely to believe in trickle-down economics because ultimately it enriches them — but that doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily a false belief. An American might sincerely believe that gun proliferation is safe, because the information they process is filtered by their biases as it’s important to their cultural identity.
So when your stock options will pay out big from the company’s success, or even just if your paycheque depends on it — you’re more likely to process information and ideas though the lens of your bias. It’s not just being a gullible true believer tricked by the company’s elite — you’re also just willing to interpret it the same way in no small part because it benefits you.