221–230 of 339 posts
In that case, why shouldn’t original funders be retroactively converted to investors and be given a large part of the ownership?
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.
> 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. OpenAI did that all by themselves before most people had heard of them. The 100x thing was 2019: https://openai.com/index/openai-lp/ Here's the broadly sarcastic reaction on this very site at the time of the announcement, I'm particularly noticing all the…
So they haven’t even scratched the surface of that given they are widely unprofitable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The path between A and B has enough tangled branches that I'm reminded of childhood maze puzzles where you have to find which entrance even gets to the right goal and not the bad outcomes. The most positive take is: they want to build a general-purpose AI, to allow fully automated luxury for all; to built with care to ensure it can only be used for positive human flourishing and cannot (easily or at all) be used for…
> an optimising agent that does the optimising faster than we do I still don't understand this. What does it mean in practice?
Covid does not hate you, nor does it love you, it simply follows an optimisation algorithm — that of genetic evolution — for the maximum reproductive success, and does so without regard to the damage it causes your body while it consumes you for parts.
Covid is pretty stupid, it's just a virus.
And yet: I've heard the mutation rate is 3.8 × 10e−6 / nucleotide / cycle, and at about 30,000 base pairs and 10e9 to 1e11 virons in an infected person, so that's ~1e8-1e10 mutations per reproductive cycle in an infected person, and that the replication cycle duration is about 10 hours. Such mutations are both how it got to harm us in the first place, why vaccination isn't once-and-done, and this logic also applies to all the other diseases in the world (including bacterial ones, which is why people are worried about bacterial resistance).
As an existence proof, Covid shows how an agent going off and doing its own thing, if it does it well enough, doesn't even need to be smart to kill a percentage point or so of the human species *by accident*.
The hope is that AI will be smart enough that we can tell it: humans (and the things we value) are not an allowed source of parts. The danger happens well before it's that smart… and that even when it is that smart, we may well not be smart enough to describe all the things we value, accurately, and without bugs/loopholes in our descriptions.
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.
> Everyone has a price, is this meant to be shocking? Left a very-well paying job over conscience reasons. TC was ~3x higher than I could get elsewhere without immigrating, probably higher than anywhere relative to CoL. I wasn't even doing defense stuff, crypto scams or anything clearly questionable like that, just clients were mostly in fossil-fuel adjacent sectors. Come from a lower-class background and haven't bui…
Start of the article: > OpenAI’s Board of Directors is evaluating our corporate structure in order to best support the mission of ensuring artificial general intelligence (AGI)1 Footnote 1: > A highly autonomous system that outperforms humans at most economically valuable work. A very interesting definition of AGI.
At least it's better than their secret internal definition. https://gizmodo.com/leaked-documents-show-openai-has-a-very-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Even the employees, I think, would probably be fine with being told “we just want to make shitloads of money”. I usually feel like these statements are more about the board members and C-suite trying to fool themselves.
Start of the article: > OpenAI’s Board of Directors is evaluating our corporate structure in order to best support the mission of ensuring artificial general intelligence (AGI)1 Footnote 1: > A highly autonomous system that outperforms humans at most economically valuable work. A very interesting definition of AGI.
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.
> they are spending so much time and effort trying Do they? It reads like a very average PR piece that an average PR person can write.
Sam Altman is one of the biggest threats to humanity right now, and I’m basing that opinion on his own statements. He believes that AGI has the potential to dismantle or destroy most of the existing world order. He believes there is some non-zero chance that even in the most capable hands it could lead to disaster. He believes OpenAI is uniquely positioned to bring AGI to the world, and he is doing everything in his…