Ilya Sutskever: We're moving from the age of scaling to the age of research
1–10 of 374 posts
Re: Ilya Sutskever: We're moving from the age of scaling to the age of research
#2So is the translation endless scaling has stopped being as effective?
Re: Ilya Sutskever: We're moving from the age of scaling to the age of research
#3So is the translation endless scaling has stopped being as effective?
[deleted]
Re: Ilya Sutskever: We're moving from the age of scaling to the age of research
#4So is the translation endless scaling has stopped being as effective?
The translation is that SSI says that SSIs strategy is the way forward so could investors please stop giving OpenAI money and give SSI the money instead. SSI has not shown anything yet, nor does SSI intend to show anything until they have created an actual Machine God, but SSI says they can pull it off so it's all good to go ahead and wire the GDP of Norway directly to Ilya.
Re: Ilya Sutskever: We're moving from the age of scaling to the age of research
#5Even as criticism targets major model providers, his inability to answer clearly about revenue & dismissing it as a future concern reveals a great deal about today's market. It's remarkable how effortlessly he, Mira, and others secure billions, confident they can thrive in such an intensely competitive field.
Without a moat defined by massive user bases, computing resources, or data, any breakthrough your researchers achieve quickly becomes fair game for replication. May be there will be new class of products, may be there is a big lock-in these companies can come up with. No one really knows!
Re: Ilya Sutskever: We're moving from the age of scaling to the age of research
#6Even as criticism targets major model providers, his inability to answer clearly about revenue & dismissing it as a future concern reveals a great deal about today's market. It's remarkable how effortlessly he, Mira, and others secure billions, confident they can thrive in such an intensely competitive field. Without a moat defined by massive user bases, computing resources, or data, any breakthrough your researchers…
TBH if you truly believe you are in the frontier of AI you probably don’t need to care too much about those numbers.
Yes corporations need those numbers, but those few humans are way more valuable than any numbers out there.
Of course, only when others believe that they are in the frontier too.
Re: Ilya Sutskever: We're moving from the age of scaling to the age of research
#7How did Dwarkesh manage to build a brand that can attract famous people to his podcast? He didn’t have prior fame from something else in research or business, right? Curious if anyone knows his growth strategy to get here.
Re: Ilya Sutskever: We're moving from the age of scaling to the age of research
#8Ages just keep flying by
Re: Ilya Sutskever: We're moving from the age of scaling to the age of research
#9Even as criticism targets major model providers, his inability to answer clearly about revenue & dismissing it as a future concern reveals a great deal about today's market. It's remarkable how effortlessly he, Mira, and others secure billions, confident they can thrive in such an intensely competitive field. Without a moat defined by massive user bases, computing resources, or data, any breakthrough your researchers…
Mira was a PM who somehow was at the right place at the right time. She isn’t actually an AI expert. Ilya however, is. I find him to be more credible and deserving in terms of research investment. That said, I agree that revenue is important and he will need a good partner (another company maybe) to turn ideas into revenue at some point. But maybe the big players like Google will just acquire them on no revenue to get access to the best research, which they can then turn into revenue.
Re: Ilya Sutskever: We're moving from the age of scaling to the age of research
#10So is the translation endless scaling has stopped being as effective?
Are you asking whether the whole podcast can be boiled down to that translation, or whether you can infer/translate that from the title?
If the former, no. If the latter, sure, approximately.