Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Evolving OpenAI's Structure

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 746 posts

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#331

Post by bigstrat2003 »

orionsbelt wrote: post #261
caseyy wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's doubtful if there even is a race anymore. The last significant AI advancement in the consumer LLM space was fluent human language synthesis around 2020, with its following assistant/chat interface. Since then, everything has been incremental — larger models, new ways to prompt them, cheaper ways to run them, more human feedback, and gaming evaluations. The wisest move in the chatbot business might be to wait and…

Saying LLMs have only incrementally improved is like saying my 13 year old has only incrementally approved over the last 5 years. Sure, it's been a set of continuous improvements, but that has taken it from a toy to genuinely insanely useful. Personally, deep research and o3 have been transformative, taking LLMs from something I have never used to something that I am using daily. Even if the progress ends up plateaui…

No, it's still just a toy. Until they can make the models actually consistently good at things, they aren't going to be useful. Right now they still BS you far too much to trust them, and because you have to double check their work every time they are worse than no tool at all.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#332

Post by [deleted] »

SCAQTony wrote: post #325

Does anyone truly believe Musk had benevolent intentions? But before we even evaluate the substance of that claim, we must ask whether he has standing to make it. In his court filing, Musk uses the word "nonprofit" 111 times, yet fails to explain how reverting OpenAI to a nonprofit structure would save humanity, elevate the public interest, or mitigate AI’s risks. The legal brief offers no humanitarian roadmap, no go…

[deleted]

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#333

Post by JumpCrisscross »

the_duke wrote: post #58
dingnuts wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

to me it sounds like an admission that AGI is bullshit! AGI would be so disruptive to the current economic regime that "winner takes all" barely covers it, I think. Admitting they will be in normal competition with other AI companies implies specializations and niches to compete, which means Artificial Specialized Intelligence, NOT general intelligence! and that makes complete sense if you don't have a lay person's u…

AGI is matter of when, not if. It will likely require research breakthroughs, significant hardware advancement, and anything from a few years to a few decades. But it's coming. ChatGPT was released 2.5 years ago, and look at all the crazy progress that has been made in that time. That doesn't mean that the progress has to continue, we'll probably see a stall. But AIs that are on a level with humans for many common ta…

> AGI is matter of when, not if

We have zero evidence for this. (Folks said the same shit in the 80s.)

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#334

Post by 6510 »

paulddraper wrote: post #254
whynotminot wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t Sam already very rich? I mean it wouldn’t be the first time a guy wanted to be even richer, but I feel like we need to be more creative when divining his intentions

OpenAI doesn’t have the lead anymore. Google/Anthropic are catching up, or already surpassed.

how? The internet says 400 m weekly chatgpt users, 19 m weekly Anthropic, 47.3 m Monthly Gemini, Grok 6.7 m daily, 430 m Baidu.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#335

Post by sigilis »

whynotminot wrote: post #274
sigilis wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would we need to be more creative? The explanation of him wanting more money is perfectly adequate. Being rich results in a kind of limitation of scope for ambition. To the sufferer, a person who has everything they could want, there is no other objective worth having. They become eccentric and they pursue more money. We should have enrichment facilities for these people where they play incremental games and don’…

> Why would we need to be more creative? The explanation of him wanting more money is perfectly adequate. Being rich results in a kind of limitation of scope for ambition. The dude announces new initiatives from the White House, regularly briefs Senators and senior DoD leaders, and is the top get for interviews around the world for AI topics. There’s a lot more to be ambitious about than just money.

These are all activities he is engaging in to generate money through the company he has a stake in. None of those activities have a purpose other than selling the work of his company and presenting it as a good investment which is how he gets money.

Maybe he wants to use the money in some nebulous future way, subjugating all people in a way that deals with his childhood trauma or whatever. That’s also something rich people do when they need a hobby aside from gathering more money. It’s not their main goal, except when they run into setbacks.

People are not complicated when they are money hoarders. They might have had hidden depths once, but they are thin furrows in the ground next to the giant piles of money that define them now.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#336

Post by thegreatpeter »

k__ wrote: post #330
richardw wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, alternatively, it’s much harder to fight with one hand behind your back. They need to be able to compete for resources and talent given the market structure, or they fail on the mission. This is already impossibly hard. Approximately zero people commenting would be able to win this battle in Sam’s shoes. What would they need to do to begin to have a chance? Rather than make all the obvious comments “bad evil man…

The moment we stop treating "bad evil man wants to ge it rich" as a straw man, we can heal.

Extra! Extra! Read all about it! "Bad evil man wants to get rich! We should enrich Google and Microsoft instead!"

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#337

Post by voidspark »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #328
voidspark wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically it is a refinement, as it distinguishes levels of performance. The General Intelligence part of AGI refers to its ability to solve problems that it was not explicitly trained to solve, across many problem domains. We already have examples of the current systems doing exactly that - zero shot and few shot capabilities. > We have no evidence of this. That's my point. Humans are not "autocompleting words" wh…

> Technically it is a refinement, as it distinguishes levels of performance No, it's bringing something out of scope into the definition. Gluten-free means free of gluten. Gluten-free bagel verus sliced bread is a refinement--both started out under the definition. Glutinous bread, on the other hand, is not gluten free. As a result, "almost gluten free" is bullshit. > That's my point. Humans are not "autocompleting wo…

> Gluten-free means free of gluten.

Bad analogy. That's a binary classification. AGI systems can have degrees of performance and capability.

> Humans are not. LLMs are.

My point is that if you oversimplify LLMs to "word autocompletion" then you can make the same argument for humans. It's such an oversimplification of the transformer / deep learning architecture that it becomes meaningless.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#338

Post by moffkalast »

jampekka wrote: post #291

> We are committed to this path of democratic AI. So were do I vote? How do I became a candidate to be a representative or a delegate of voters? I assume every single human is eligible for both, as OpenAI serves the humanity?

They are committed, they didn't say they pushed yet. Or will ever.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#339

Post by csours »

orionsbelt wrote: post #261
caseyy wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's doubtful if there even is a race anymore. The last significant AI advancement in the consumer LLM space was fluent human language synthesis around 2020, with its following assistant/chat interface. Since then, everything has been incremental — larger models, new ways to prompt them, cheaper ways to run them, more human feedback, and gaming evaluations. The wisest move in the chatbot business might be to wait and…

Saying LLMs have only incrementally improved is like saying my 13 year old has only incrementally approved over the last 5 years. Sure, it's been a set of continuous improvements, but that has taken it from a toy to genuinely insanely useful. Personally, deep research and o3 have been transformative, taking LLMs from something I have never used to something that I am using daily. Even if the progress ends up plateaui…

To extend your illustration, 5 years ago no one could train an LLM with the capabilities of a 13 year old human; now many companies can both train LLMs and integrate them into products.

> taken it from a toy to genuinely insanely useful.

Really?

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#340

Post by JumpCrisscross »

pi-err wrote: post #133
jjani wrote: post #107

SamA is in a hurry because he's set to lose the race. We're at peak valuation and he needs to convert something now . If the entrenched giants (Google, Microsoft and Apple) catch up - and Google 100% has, if not surpassed - they have a thousand levers to pull and OpenAI is done for. Microsoft has realized this, hence why they're breaking up with them - Google and Anthropic have shown they don't need OpenAI. Galaxy ph…

Sounds a lot like "Google+ will catch Facebook in no time". OpenAI has been on a winning streak that makes ChatGPT the default chatbot for most of the planet. Everybody else like you describe is trying to add some AI crap behind a button on a congested UI. B2B market will stay open but OpenAI has certainly not peaked yet.

> OpenAI has been on a winning streak that makes ChatGPT the default chatbot for most of the planet

OpenAI has like 10 to 20% market share [1][2]. They're also an American company whose CEO got on stage with an increasingly-hated world leader. There is no universe in which they keep equal access to the world's largest economies.

[1] https://iot-analytics.com/leading-generative-ai-companies/

[2] https://www.enterpriseappstoday.com/stats/openai-statistics....

Post reply on HN