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

Elon Musk pushes out more xAI founders as AI coding effort falters

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 889 posts

Re: Elon Musk pushes out more xAI founders as AI coding effort falters

#121

Post by Retr0id »

_fizz_buzz_ wrote: post #110
chabes wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That consent of portrayed parties is impossible. What is the solution there?

Shouldn’t it be possible for AI to filter out that a request is made to portray a real person? That seems almost like a trivial task for a good model. I am sure every now and then something will slip through, but I bet one could make it very close to 100% effective.

I can see how it'd be trivial to block known celebrities, but how do you handle everyone else?

Re: Elon Musk pushes out more xAI founders as AI coding effort falters

#122

Post by weirdmantis69 »

I_am_tiberius wrote: post #77
dang wrote: post #46

[stub for generic-indignant tangents - not what this site is for - please see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html ]

[flagged]

You wouldn't want to work for a genius? Probably the most significant person alive today?

Re: Elon Musk pushes out more xAI founders as AI coding effort falters

#123

Post by lobf »

Auracle wrote: post #118
ryandrake wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there actual good examples showing errors of fact on Wikipedia that are verifiably incorrect, that demonstrate how it is "captured"?

[flagged]

>As you can see, Wikipedia is very dismissive to the point of effectively lying.

Did I miss where you presented evidence that wikipedia is wrong? You seem to be taking an assumption you carry (race is related to IQ) and assuming everyone believes it's true as well, thus wikipedia is lying.

Re: Elon Musk pushes out more xAI founders as AI coding effort falters

#124

Post by ThrowawayTestr »

BoredPositron wrote: post #82
Herring wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

He is not wrong here dang and you are keen to scold one side of the bar more than the other in the last few months. This thread is a good example there wasn't even anything in the comments and it got a sticky real quick.

I come to HN because I don't want to read reddit-tier comments like the above.

Re: Elon Musk pushes out more xAI founders as AI coding effort falters

#125

Post by Imnimo »

I think the problem for xAI is that it can really only hire two types of researchers - people who are philosophically aligned with Elon, and people who are solely money-motivated (not a judgment). But frontier AI research is a field with a lot of top talent who have strong philosophical motivation for their work, and those philosophies are often completely at odds with Elon. OpenAI and Anthropic have philosophical niches that are much better at attracting the current cream of the crop, and I don't really see how xAI can compete with that.

Re: Elon Musk pushes out more xAI founders as AI coding effort falters

#128

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

_fizz_buzz_ wrote: post #110
chabes wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That consent of portrayed parties is impossible. What is the solution there?

Shouldn’t it be possible for AI to filter out that a request is made to portray a real person? That seems almost like a trivial task for a good model. I am sure every now and then something will slip through, but I bet one could make it very close to 100% effective.

AI development has become an excuse for ignoring consent. Of course it's possible to filter out requests. But culturally with X, it's not remotely likely, unless compelled by regulation with teeth.

Re: Elon Musk pushes out more xAI founders as AI coding effort falters

#129

Post by ibero »

gowld wrote: post #117
ryandrake wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there actual good examples showing errors of fact on Wikipedia that are verifiably incorrect, that demonstrate how it is "captured"?

It's not errors of fact, it's errors of omitted facts.

Are there actual good examples showing errors of omitted facts on Wikipedia that are verifiably correct, that demonstrate how it is "captured"?
Post reply on HN