AI actually wrote this article for them which is the craziest thing
Evolving OpenAI's Structure
461–470 of 746 posts
Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure
#462I 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,…
AGI can't really be a winner take all market. The 'reward' for general intelligence is infinite as a monopoly and it accelerates productivity. Not only is there infinite incentive to compete, but theres decreasing costs to. The only world in which AGI is winner take all is a world in which it is extremely controlled to the point at which the public cant query it.
AGI can be winner take all. But winner take all AGI is not aligned with the larger interests of humanity.
Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure
#463This is the moment where we fumble the opportunity to avoid a repeat of Web 1.0's ad-driven race to the bottom Look forward to re-living that shift from life-changing community resource to scammy and user-hostile
I feel this. I had a very productive convo with an LLM today and realized that a huge part of the value of it was that it addressed my questions in a focused way, without trying to sell me anything or generate SEO rankings or register ad impressions. It just helped me. And that was incredibly refreshing in a digital world that generally feels adversarial.
Then the thought came, when will they start showing ads here.
I like to think that if we learn to pay for it directly, or the open source models get good enough, we could still enjoy that simplicity and focus for quite a while. Here’s hoping!
Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure
#464Earlier quoted context omitted.
Replace Musk with "any billionaire." He's a symptom of a problem. He's not actually the problem.
If you are a materialist, the laws of physics are the problem. But to speak plainly, Musk is a complex figure, frequently problematic, and he often exacts a tool on the people around him. Part of this is attributable to his wealth, part to his particulars. When he goes into "demon mode", to use Walter Isaacson's phrase, you don't want to be in his way.
> If you are a materialist, the laws of physics are the problem.
I'm a citizen, the laws of politics are the problem.
> Musk is a complex figure
Hogwash. He's greedy. There's nothing complex about that.
> and he often exacts a tool on the people around him
Yea it's a one way transfer of wealth from them to him. The _literal_ definition of a "toll."
> When he goes into "demon mode"
When he decides to lie, cheat and steal? Why do you strain so hard to lionize this behavior?
> you don't want to be in his way.
Name a billionaire who's way you would _like_ to be in. Elon Musk literally stops existing tomorrow. A person who's name you don't currently know will become known and take his place.
His place needs to be removed. It's not a function of his "personality" or "particulars." That's just goofy "temporarily embarrassed billionaire" thinking.
Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure
#465Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Name me a human that also doesn't need direction or guidance to do a task, at least one they haven't done before Literally everything that's been invented.
I feel like, if nothing else, this new wave of AI products is rapidly demonstrating the lack of faith people have in their own intelligence -- or maybe, just the intelligence of other human beings. That's not to say that this latest round of AI isn't impressive, but legions of apologists seem to forget that there is more to human cognition than being able to regurgitate facts, write grammatically-correct sentences, a…
> legions of apologists seem to forget that there is more to human cognition than being able to regurgitate facts, write grammatically-correct sentences, and solve logical puzzles
To be fair, there is a section of the population whose useful intelligence can roughly be summed up as that or worse.
Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure
#466Earlier 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. 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…
> 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.
So he doesn't enjoy the attention? Prestige or power? Respect?
Are you Sam Altman? Because you're making a lot of assumptions on his psyche right now.
Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure
#467Earlier 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. Not only is there infinite incentive to compete, but theres decreasing costs to. The only world in which AGI is winner take all is a world in which it is extremely controlled to the point at which the public cant query it.
> 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…
I think the foundation model companies are actually poorly situated to reach the leading edge of AGI first, simply because their efforts are fragmented across multiple companies with different specializations—Claude is best at coding, OpenAI at reasoning, Gemini at large context, and so on.
The most advanced tools are (and will continue to be) at a higher level of the stack, combining the leading models for different purposes to achieve results that no single provider can match using only their own models.
I see no reason to think this won't hold post-AGI (if that happens). AGI doesn't mean capabilities are uniform.
Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure
#468SamA 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.
Google+ absolutely would have won, and it was clear to me that somebody at Google decided they didn't want to be in the business of social networking. It was killed deliberately, it didn't just peter out.
Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure
#469Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lots of people in academia and industry are calling for more oversight. It's the US government that's behind. Europe's AI Act bans applications with unacceptable risk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_Intelligence_Act
The US government probably doesn't think it's behind. Right now it's operated by a bunch of people who think that you can directly relate the amount of money a venture could make in the next 90 days to its net benefit for society. Government telling them how they can and cannot make that money, in their minds, is government telling them that they cannot bring maximum benefit to society. Now, is this mindset myopic to…
I'd go further and say the US government wants "an instrument more powerful than any nuclear weapon" to be built in its territory, by people it has jurisdiction over.
It might not be a direct US-govt project like the Manhattan Project was, but it doesn't have to. The government has the ties it needs with the heads of all these AI companies, and if it comes to it, the US-govt has the muscle and legal authority to reign control over it.
A good deal for everyone involved really. These companies get to make bank and technology that furthers their market dominance, the US-govt gets potentially "Manhattan project"-level pivotal technology— it's elites helping elites.
Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure
#470Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
> That's a binary classification. AGI systems can have degrees of performance and capability The "g" in AGI requires the AI be able to perform "the full spectrum of cognitively demanding tasks with proficiency comparable to, or surpassing, that of humans" [1]. Full and not full are binary. > if you oversimplify LLMs to "word autocompletion" then you can make the same argument for humans No, you can't, unless you're p…
Why are you linking a Wikipedia page like it's the ground zero for the term? Especially when neither article the page link to justify that definition see the term as a binary accomplishment.
The g in AGI is General. I don't what world you think Generality isn't a spectrum, but it's sure as hell isn't this one.