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

401–410 of 746 posts

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#401

Post by tbrownaw »

foobiekr wrote: post #81
the_duke wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think this is right but also missing a useful perspective. Most HN people are probably too young to remember that the nanotech post-scarcity singularity was right around the corner - just some research and engineering way - which was the widespread opinion in 1986 (yes, 1986). It was _just as dramatic_ as today's AGI. That took 4-5 years to fall apart, and maybe a bit longer for the broader "nanotech is going to ch…

> Did nanotech disappear? No, but the notion of general purpose universal constructors absolutely is dead. Will we have them someday? Maybe, if humanity survives a hundred more years or more,

I thought this was a "we know we can't" thing rather than a "not with current technology" thing?

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#402

Post by selfselfgo »

phreeza wrote: post #79
atlasunshrugged wrote: post #13

I think this is one of the most interesting lines as it basically directly implies that leadership thinks this won't be a winner take all market: > Instead of our current complex capped-profit structure—which made sense when it looked like there might be one dominant AGI effort but doesn’t in a world of many great AGI companies—we are moving to a normal capital structure where everyone has stock. This is not a sale,…

That is a very obvious thing for them to say though regardless of what they truly believe, because (a) it legitimizes removing the cap , making fundraising easier and (b) averts antitrust suspicions.

[dead]

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#403

Post by root_axis »

brookst wrote: post #378
henryfjordan wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does the Author choose to ignore the "General" in AGI? Can ChatGPT drive a car? No, we have specialized models for driving vs generating text vs image vs video etc etc. Maybe ChatGPT could pass a high school chemistry test but it certainly couldn't complete the lab exercises. What we've built is a really cool "Algorithm for indexing generalized data", so you can train that Driving model very similarly to how you…

There are people who can’t drive cars. Are they not general intelligence? I think we need to separate the thinking part of intelligence from tool usage. Not everyone can use every tool at a high level of expertise.

Generally speaking, anyone can learn to use any tool. This isn't true of generative AI systems which can only learn through specialized training with meticulously curated data sets.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#404

Post by moralestapia »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #344
moralestapia wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry but perhaps you haven't looked at the actual numbers. Market share of OpenAI is like 90%+.

> Market share of OpenAI is like 90%+ Source? I've seen 10 to 20% [1][2]. [1] https://iot-analytics.com/leading-generative-ai-companies/ [2] https://www.enterpriseappstoday.com/stats/openai-statistics....

Hmm ...

I probably need to clarify what I'm talking about, so that peeps like @JumpCrisscross can get a better grasp of it.

I do not mean the total market share of the category of businesses that could be labeled as "AI companies", like Microsoft or NVIDIA, on your first link.

I will not talk about your second link because it does not seem to make sense within the context of this conversation (zero mentions or references to market share).

What I mean is:

* The main product that OpenAI sells is AI models (GPT-4o, etc...)

* OpenAI does not make hardware. OpenAI is not in the business of cloud infrastructure. OpenAI is not in the business of selling smartphones. A comparison between OpenAI and any of those companies would only make sense for someone with a very casual understanding of this topic. I can think of someone, perhaps, who only used ChatGPT a couple times and inferred it was made by Apple because it was there on its phone. This discussion calls for a deeper understanding of what OpenAI is.

* Other examples of companies that sell their own AI models, and thus compete directly with OpenAI in the same market that OpenAI operates by taking a look at their products and services, are Anthropic (w/ Claude), Google (w/ Gemini) and some others ones like Meta and Mistral with open models.

* All those companies/models, together, make up some market that you can put any name you want to it (The AI Model Market TM)

That is the market I'm talking about, and that is the one that I estimated to be 90%+ which was pretty much on point, as usual :).

1: https://gs.statcounter.com/ai-chatbot-market-share

2: https://www.ctol.digital/news/latest-llm-market-share-mar-20...

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#405

Post by JumpCrisscross »

tbrownaw wrote: post #369
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AGI can't really be a winner take all market. The 'reward' for general intelligence is infinite as a monopoly and it accelerates productivity The first-mover advantages of an AGI that can improve itself are theoretically unsurmountable. But OpenAI doesn't have a path to AGI any more than anyone else. (It's increasingly clear LLMs alone don't make the cut.) And the market for LLMs, non-general AI, is very much not w…

> The first-mover advantages of an AGI that can improve itself are theoretically unsurmountable. This has some baked assumptions about cycle time and improvement per cycle and whether there's a ceiling.

> this has some baked assumptions about cycle time and improvement per cycle and whether there's a ceiling

To be precise, it assumes a low variability in cycle time and improvement per cycle. If everyone is subjected to the same limits, the first-mover advantage remains insurmountable. I’d also argue that whether there is a ceiling matters less than how high it is. If the first AGI won’t hit a ceiling for decades, it will have decades of fratricidal supremacy.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#406

Post by ben_w »

latentsea wrote: post #362
dom96 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This constant redefinition of what AGI means is really tiring. Until an AI has agency, it is nothing but a fancy search engine/auto completer.

I agree. AGI is meaningless as a term if it doesn't mean completely autonomous agentic intelligence capable of operating on long-term planning horizons. Edit: because if "AGI" doesn't mean that... then what means that and only that!?

> Edit: because if "AGI" doesn't mean that... then what means that and only that!?

"Agentic AI" means that.

Well, to some people, anyway. And even then, people are already arguing about what counts as agency.

That's the trouble with new tech, we have to invent words for new stuff that was previously fiction.

I wonder, did people argue if "horseless carriages" were really carriages? And "aeroplane" how many argued that "plane" didn't suit either the Latin or Greek etymology for various reasons?

We never did rename "atoms" after we split them…

And then there's plain drift: Traditional UK Christmas food is the "mince pie", named for the filling, mincemeat. They're usually vegetarian and sometimes even vegan.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#407

Post by [deleted] »

root_axis wrote: post #403
brookst wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are people who can’t drive cars. Are they not general intelligence? I think we need to separate the thinking part of intelligence from tool usage. Not everyone can use every tool at a high level of expertise.

Generally speaking, anyone can learn to use any tool. This isn't true of generative AI systems which can only learn through specialized training with meticulously curated data sets.

[deleted]

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#408

Post by selfselfgo »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #348
stego-tech wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That world never existed. Yes, pockets did - IT professionals with broadband lines and spare kit hosting IRC servers and phpBB forums from their homes free of charge, a few VC-funded companies offering idealistic visions of the net until funding ran dry (RIP CoHost) - but once the web became privatized, it was all in service of the bottom line by companies. Web 2.0 onwards was all about centralization, surveillance,…

> That world never existed It absolutely did. Steve Wozniak was real. Silicon Valley wasn't always a hive of liars and sycophants.

[dead]

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#410

Post by JumpCrisscross »

moralestapia wrote: post #404
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Market share of OpenAI is like 90%+ Source? I've seen 10 to 20% [1][2]. [1] https://iot-analytics.com/leading-generative-ai-companies/ [2] https://www.enterpriseappstoday.com/stats/openai-statistics....

Hmm ... I probably need to clarify what I'm talking about, so that peeps like @JumpCrisscross can get a better grasp of it. I do not mean the total market share of the category of businesses that could be labeled as "AI companies", like Microsoft or NVIDIA, on your first link. I will not talk about your second link because it does not seem to make sense within the context of this conversation (zero mentions or refere…

> that is the market that I'm talking about, and that is the one that I (correctly, as usual) estimated to be around 90% [1][2]

Your second source doesn’t say what it’s measuring and disclaims itself as from its “‘experimental era’ — a beautiful mess of enthusiasm, caffeine, and user-submitted chaos.” Your first link only measures chatbots.

ChatGPT is a chatbot. OpenAI sells AI models, including via ChatGPT. Among chatbots, sure, 84% per your source. (Not “90%+,” as you stated.) But OpenAI makes more than chatbots, and in the broader AI model market, its lead is far from 80+ percent.

TL; DR It is entirely wrong to say the “market share of OpenAI is like 90%+.”

[1] https://firstpagesage.com/reports/top-generative-ai-chatbots...

Post reply on HN