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

Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 915 posts

Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal

#351

Post by meroes »

sourraspberry wrote: post #87
theplatman wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

when i realized that sama isn't that much of an ai researcher, it became clearer that this is more akin to a group delusion for hype purposes than a real possibility

You can read the leaked emails from the Musk lawsuit. At the very least, Ilya Sutskever genuinely believed it, even when they were just making a DOTA bot, and not for hype purposes. I know he's been out of OpenAI for a while, but if his thinking trickled down into the company's culture, which given his role and how long he was there I would say seems likely, I don't think it's all hype. Grand delusion, perhaps.

There’s 3 main facets behind AGI pushers

1) True believers 2) Hype 3) A way to wash blatant copyright infringement

True believers are scary and can be taken advantage of. I played DOTA from 2005 on and beating pros is not enough for AGI belief. I get that the learning is more indirect than a deterministic decision tree, but the scaling limitations and gaps in types of knowledge that are ingestible makes AGI a pipe dream for my lifetime.

Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal

#352

Post by turtlesdown11 »

AntiUSAbah wrote: post #207
bmitc wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same thing happened with self-driving cars. Oh and cryptocurrencies.

Self-driving had never the amount of compute, research adoption and money than what the current overall AI has. Its not comparable. Crypto was flawed from the beginning and lots of people didn't understood it properly. Not even that a blockchain can't secure a transaction from something outside of a blockchain.

> Self-driving had never the amount of compute, research adoption and money than what the current overall AI has. Its not comparable.

$100+ billion in R&D and it's not comparable... hmm

Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal

#353

Post by turtlesdown11 »

lesuorac wrote: post #318
snek_case wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The metaverse is another example if anyone doubts the bounds of corporate stupidity.

Why? FaceBook largely requires an Apple iPhone, Apple computer, "Microsoft" computer, "Google" phone, or a "Google" computer to use it. At any point one of those companies could cut FaceBook off (ex. [1]). The Metaverse was a long term goal to get people onto a device (Occulus) that Meta controlled. While I think an AR device is much more useful than VR; I'm not convinced that it's a mistake for Meta to peruse not be…

so after $80 billion spent, they must have an ecosystem of hundreds of millions of users? Right?

Maybe they should have spent that on the facebookphone

Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal

#354

Post by mort96 »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #347
mort96 wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before I start typing, I think abstractly about the topic and decide on what I shall write in response. Due to the linear nature of time, typing necessarily happens one word at a time, but I am never producing a probability distribution of words (at least not in a way that my conscious self can determine), I consider an entire idea and then decide what tokens to enter into the computer in order to communicate the ide…

Before I start typing, I think abstractly about the topic Before you start typing, an fMRI machine can tell you which finger you'll lift first, before you know it yourself. We are not special. Consciousness is literally a continuous hallucination that we make up to explain what we do and what we think, after the fact. A machine can be trained to behave identically, but it's not clear if that's the best way forward or…

What's your argument? An fMRI can tell which finger I will lift first before that information makes its way to my consciousness, ergo next word prediction is sufficient for general intelligence? Do you hear yourself?

Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal

#355

Post by zendist »

jmward01 wrote: post #271
delis-thumbs-7e wrote: post #30

It’s insane how they talk about AGI, like it was some scientifically qualifiable thing that is certain to happen any time now. When I have become the javelin Olympic Champion, I will buy a vegan ice cream to everyone with a HN account.

I think we keep changing the goalposts on AGI. If you gave me CC in the 80's I would probably have called it 'alive' since it clearly passes the Turing test as I understood it then (I wouldn't have been able to distinguish it from a person for most conversations). Now every time it gets better we push that definition further and every crack we open to a chasm and declare that it isn't close. At the same time there ar…

The goal post keeps moving because LLM hypeists keep saying LLMs are "close" to AGI (or even are, already). Any reasonably intelligent individual that knows anything about LLMs obviously rejects those claims, but the rest of the world doesn't.

An AGI would not have problems reading an analog clock. Or rather, it would not have a problem realizing it had a problem reading it, and would try to learn how to do it.

An AGI is not whatever (sophisticated) statistical model is hot this week.

Just my take.

Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal

#356

Post by AntiUSAbah »

freejazz wrote: post #337
AntiUSAbah wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Self-driving had never the amount of compute, research adoption and money than what the current overall AI has. Its not comparable. Crypto was flawed from the beginning and lots of people didn't understood it properly. Not even that a blockchain can't secure a transaction from something outside of a blockchain.

> Self-driving had never the amount of compute, research adoption and money than what the current overall AI has. And yet they don't do really good jobs with pretty much anything, save for software development, to which people still seem pretty split as far as it being a helpful thing. That's before we even factor in the cost.

I find them very helpful. I use gemini regularly for multiply things.

I also believe that whatever code researchers and other non software engineers wrote before coding agents, were similiar shitty but took them a lot longer to write.

Like do you know how many researchers need to do some data analysis and hack around code because they never learned programming? So so many. If they know how to verify their data (which they needed to know before already), a LLM helps them already.

There is also plenty of other code were perfection doesn't matter. Non SaaS software exists.

For security experts, we just saw whats happening. The curl inventor mentioned it online that the newest AI reports for Security issues are real and the amount of security gaps found are real and a lot of work.

Image generation is very good and you can see it today already everywere. From cheap restaurants using it, to invitations, whatsapp messages, social media, advertising.

I have a work collegue, who is in it for 6 years and he studied, he is so underqualified if you give me his salary as tokens today, i wouldn't think for a second to replace him.

Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal

#357

Post by redox99 »

_russross wrote: post #329
jmward01 wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we keep changing the goalposts on AGI. If you gave me CC in the 80's I would probably have called it 'alive' since it clearly passes the Turing test as I understood it then (I wouldn't have been able to distinguish it from a person for most conversations). Now every time it gets better we push that definition further and every crack we open to a chasm and declare that it isn't close. At the same time there ar…

Turing himself argued that trying to measure if a computer is intelligent is a fool's errand because it is so difficult to pin down definitions. He proposed what we call the "Turing test" as a knowable, measurable alternative. The first paragraph of his paper reads: > I propose to consider the question, "Can machines think?" This should begin > with definitions of the meaning of the terms "machine" and "think." The >…

The Turing test ended up being kind of a flop. We basically passed it and nobody cared. That's because the turing test is about whether a machine can fool a human, not about its intelligent capabilities per se.

Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal

#358

Post by applfanboysbgon »

jmward01 wrote: post #271
delis-thumbs-7e wrote: post #30

It’s insane how they talk about AGI, like it was some scientifically qualifiable thing that is certain to happen any time now. When I have become the javelin Olympic Champion, I will buy a vegan ice cream to everyone with a HN account.

I think we keep changing the goalposts on AGI. If you gave me CC in the 80's I would probably have called it 'alive' since it clearly passes the Turing test as I understood it then (I wouldn't have been able to distinguish it from a person for most conversations). Now every time it gets better we push that definition further and every crack we open to a chasm and declare that it isn't close. At the same time there ar…

People thought Eliza was alive too in the 60s. AGI is not determined by how ignorant, uninformed humans view a technology they don't understand. That is the single dumbest criterion you could come up with for defining it.

Regarding shifting goalposts, you are suggesting the goalposts are being moved further away, but it's the exact opposite. The goalposts are being moved closer and closer. Someone from the 50s would have had the expectation that artificial intelligence ise something recognisable as essentially equivalent to human intelligence, just in a machine. Artificial intelligence in old sci-fi looked nothing like Claude Code. The definition has since been watered down again and again and again and again so that anything and everything a computer does is artificial intelligence. We might as well call a calculator AGI at this point.

Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal

#359

Post by redox99 »

zendist wrote: post #355
jmward01 wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we keep changing the goalposts on AGI. If you gave me CC in the 80's I would probably have called it 'alive' since it clearly passes the Turing test as I understood it then (I wouldn't have been able to distinguish it from a person for most conversations). Now every time it gets better we push that definition further and every crack we open to a chasm and declare that it isn't close. At the same time there ar…

The goal post keeps moving because LLM hypeists keep saying LLMs are "close" to AGI (or even are, already). Any reasonably intelligent individual that knows anything about LLMs obviously rejects those claims, but the rest of the world doesn't. An AGI would not have problems reading an analog clock. Or rather, it would not have a problem realizing it had a problem reading it, and would try to learn how to do it. An AG…

Vision is still much weaker than text for LLMs. So you could argue we already have AGI for text but not vision inputs, or you could argue AGI requires being human level at text vision and sound.

Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal

#360

Post by mort96 »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #347
mort96 wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before I start typing, I think abstractly about the topic and decide on what I shall write in response. Due to the linear nature of time, typing necessarily happens one word at a time, but I am never producing a probability distribution of words (at least not in a way that my conscious self can determine), I consider an entire idea and then decide what tokens to enter into the computer in order to communicate the ide…

Before I start typing, I think abstractly about the topic Before you start typing, an fMRI machine can tell you which finger you'll lift first, before you know it yourself. We are not special. Consciousness is literally a continuous hallucination that we make up to explain what we do and what we think, after the fact. A machine can be trained to behave identically, but it's not clear if that's the best way forward or…

> (Edit: to answer your question, the substrate your mind uses to drive this process can be considered an array of tokens that, themselves, can be considered 'words.')

This seems like a factual claim. Can you link a source?

(Also why respond in the form of an edit?)

Post reply on HN