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

501–510 of 746 posts

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#501

Post by voidspark »

buu700 wrote: post #373
always_imposter wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AGI would mean something which doesn't need direction or guidance to do anything. Like us humans, we don't wait for somebody to give us a task and go do it as if that is our sole existence. We live with our thoughts, blank out, watch TV, read books etc. What we currently have and possibly in the next century as well will be nothing close to an actual AGI. I don't know if it is optimism or delusions of grandeur that d…

I think there's a useful distinction that's often missed between AGI and artificial consciousness. We could conceivably have some version of AI that reliably performs any task you throw at it consistently with peak human capabilities, given sufficient tools or hardware to complete whatever that task may be, but lacks subjective experience or independent agency; I would call that AGI. The two concepts have historicall…

That's an important distinction.

A machine could be super intelligent at solving real world practical tasks, better than any human, without being conscious.

We don't have a proper definition of consciousness. Consciousness is infinitely more mysterious than measurable intelligence.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#502

Post by jrmg »

voidspark wrote: post #96
Night_Thastus wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing OpenAI is doing, or ever has done, has been close to AGI.

Their multimodal models are a rudimentary form of AGI. EDIT: There can be levels of AGI. Google DeepMind have proposed a framework that would classify ChatGPT as "Emerging AGI". https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02462

Ah! Like Full Self Driving!

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#503

Post by apsurd »

orionsbelt wrote: post #491
apsurd wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't square how OpenAi can capture users and presumably retain them when the incumbents have been capturing users for multiple decades and why can they not retain them? If every major player had an AI option, i'm just not understanding how because OpenAi moved first or got big first, the hugely massively successful companies that did the same thing for multiple decades don't have the same advantage?

Who knows how this will play out, but user behavior is always somewhat sticky and OpenAI now has 400M+ weekly active users. Currently, I'm not sure there is much of a moat, as many would jump if, say, Google released a model that is 10x better. However, there are myriad ways that OpenAI could slowly try to make their userbase even stickier: 1. OpenAI is apparently in the process of building a social network. 2. OpenA…

Very thought provoking reply. #3 sounds the most sticky to me, in the product sense that you'd build "your own LLM/agent" and plug it other services. I heard this on a product podcast [1], think of it like Okta SSO integration: access controls for your personal/sensitive LLM stuff vs all other services trying to get you to use their LLM.

#5 stands out as well as a substantial barrier.

The rest to me our sticky, but no more uniquely sticky than any other service that retains data. Like the switching cost of email or a browser. It does stick but not insurmountable and once the switch is made, it's like why did I wait so long? (I'm a Safari user!)

Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful reply.

[1] https://www.reforge.com/podcast/unsolicited-feedback/the-gre...

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#505

Post by voidspark »

threeseed wrote: post #397
KHRZ wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can literally today prompt ChatGPT with API instructions to drive a car, then feed it images of a car's window outlooks and have it generate commands for the car (JSON schema restricted structured commands if you like). Text can represent any data thus yes, it is general.

> JSON schema restricted structured commands if you like How about we have ChatGPT start with a simple task like reliably generating JSON schema when asked to. Hint: it will fail.

ChatGPT can write a working Python script to generate the Json. It can call a library to do that.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#506

Post by NoahZuniga »

A_Duck wrote: post #374

This 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

Ads intermixed into llm responses is so clearly evil that openai will never do it so long as the nonprofit has a controlling stake (which it currently still has), because the nonprofit would never allow it.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#507

Post by vrosas »

jon_richards wrote: post #321
dgreensp wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think the parent was saying that everyone’s intentions were pure until recently, but rather that naked greed wasn’t cool before, but now it is. The Internet has changed a lot over the decades, and it did used to be different, with the differences depending on how many years you go back.

As recently as the Silicon Valley tv show, the joke was that every startup pitch claimed they were “making the world a better place”.

"I don't want to live in a world where someone else makes the world a better place better than we do." -Gavin Belson

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#508

Post by jrvarela56 »

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,…

Not saying this is OpenAI's case, but every monopolist claims they are not a monopolist...

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#509

Post by sealeck »

esafak wrote: post #61
otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, because it's obviously bullshit and everyone knows it. Just play the game and get rich like everyone else.

Are you sure about that? AI-powered robotic soldiers are around the corner. What could go wrong...

Robot soldiers != AGI

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#510

Post by danenania »

aylmao wrote: post #497
danenania wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "good" thing is this is all way too expensive to be ad-supported. Maybe there will be some ad-supported products using very small/cheap models, but the leading edge stuff is always going to be at the leading-edge of compute usage too, and someone has to pay the bill. Even with investors subsidizing a lot of the costs, it's still very expensive to use the best models heavily for real work.

Subscription services can sell ads too. See Hulu, or Netflix. Spotify might not play "radio ads" if you pay, but it will still advertise artists on your home screen. These models being expensive leads me to think they will look at all methods of monetization possible when seeking profitability. Rather than ads being off the table, it could feasibly make ads be on the table sooner.

Maybe it could happen, but the revenue that can be made per user from ads is basically insignificant compared to the compute costs. They’d be pissing off their users for a very marginal benefit.
Post reply on HN