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

Greg Brockman interview [video]

fs.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 276 posts

Re: Greg Brockman interview [video]

#121

Post by ralph84 »

tcp_handshaker wrote: post #56
nba456_ wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If his entire personal diary got exposed and that's the worst that's in it, good for him.

What about stealing 12 million books of copyrighted human culture, at massive scale, and then enclosing the value created inside proprietary, investor-backed systems? Something wrong with that? What happens if you go tomorrow, downtown San Francisco, and leave a bookstore with one book without paying? "Behind every great fortune there is a crime" - Honoré de Balzac

> enclosing the value created inside proprietary, investor-backed systems

What do you think copyright does. Human culture is owned by humanity, not Disney or the New York Times.

Re: Greg Brockman interview [video]

#122

Post by dooglius »

granzymes wrote: post #117
bix6 wrote: post #75

I just don’t understand why a non-profit was allowed to do this. Does this not set a precedent that non-profit doesn’t actually mean anything? You can just use a favorable structure until it’s time to enrich yourself.

I think it would be helpful for you to clarify which part of the chain you found objectionable: - in 2015, OpenAI was founded as a Delaware nonprofit - in 2017, OpenAI discovered the scaling laws and realized they needed far more compute (and thus money) than they had initially anticipated - that discovery precipitated a series of negotiations between the founders on how to restructure OpenAI to raise more money for…

The objectional part would be:

- in 2019, OpenAI created a capped-profit subsidiary in order to attract funding from commercial entities

Particularly if it creates a conflict of interest for anyone making decisions on behalf of the nonprofit

Re: Greg Brockman interview [video]

#123

Post by tasuki »

YetAnotherNick wrote: post #21

Why can't someone ask what happened in Ilya's mind. Firing Sam and then signing the solidarity letter of Sam to leave OpenAI if was fired. Other than that, all other information seems kind of just going over the surface.

Yes, that, please! I also never understood why the board resigned after ousting Sam...

Re: Greg Brockman interview [video]

#124

Post by tasuki »

tcp_handshaker wrote: post #56
nba456_ wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If his entire personal diary got exposed and that's the worst that's in it, good for him.

What about stealing 12 million books of copyrighted human culture, at massive scale, and then enclosing the value created inside proprietary, investor-backed systems? Something wrong with that? What happens if you go tomorrow, downtown San Francisco, and leave a bookstore with one book without paying? "Behind every great fortune there is a crime" - Honoré de Balzac

> What about stealing 12 million books

Who's missing the books? 12 million books is a rather large warehouse!

I thought HN was in the "information wants to be free" camp...

Re: Greg Brockman interview [video]

#125

Post by tasuki »

sumeno wrote: post #85
_zoltan_ wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worse? There is nothing wrong with wanting 1B. Anybody who said they wouldn't want it is lying.

I would be a billionaire for about 5 minutes because I'd spend 95% of it making the lives of others better and still have enough left over that neither me nor any of my immediate family ever has to work again instead of hoarding it like the monsters who end up actually having a billion dollars.

What is the point of your comment? It is hard for me to read it in another way than "I am very virtuous", which might be true (well done you!) but usually isn't a thing people post about themselves in a discussion forum...

Re: Greg Brockman interview [video]

#126

Post by wrsh07 »

tim333 wrote: post #110
bix6 wrote: post #75

I just don’t understand why a non-profit was allowed to do this. Does this not set a precedent that non-profit doesn’t actually mean anything? You can just use a favorable structure until it’s time to enrich yourself.

Non profits have always been able to have for profit subsidiaries, owned by the non profit.

IKEA is a famous example, although they sequenced things in a way many commenters here would probably be fine with

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKEA_Foundation

Re: Greg Brockman interview [video]

#127

Post by bix6 »

granzymes wrote: post #117
bix6 wrote: post #75

I just don’t understand why a non-profit was allowed to do this. Does this not set a precedent that non-profit doesn’t actually mean anything? You can just use a favorable structure until it’s time to enrich yourself.

I think it would be helpful for you to clarify which part of the chain you found objectionable: - in 2015, OpenAI was founded as a Delaware nonprofit - in 2017, OpenAI discovered the scaling laws and realized they needed far more compute (and thus money) than they had initially anticipated - that discovery precipitated a series of negotiations between the founders on how to restructure OpenAI to raise more money for…

The whole process has been a circus but I found the AG waiver rather frustrating. Nothing like negotiating with a charity to get an IOU that it’ll be charitable. https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bont...

Re: Greg Brockman interview [video]

#128

Post by wrsh07 »

quantum_state wrote: post #62

It’s a matter of fact that OpenAI betrayed its origin.

I think of it more as a parable about how effective 'tying yourself to the mast' actually is

The founders of OpenAI naively^ thought "this will make sure that we don't have too much power if we succeed"

But it didn't work. What lesson should we learn?^^

^ please grant this for the sake of argument

^^ I have other models that I prefer to explain what happened, but I think this one is the most interesting

Re: Greg Brockman interview [video]

#129

Post by jmalicki »

sigbottle wrote: post #71
jmalicki wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

pretraining isn't unsupervised, it is self-supervised - meaning it is moderately more scale limited.

What would unsupervised mean, would unsupervised be something like alphago playing against itself trillions of times? Whereas self-supervised, allows learning without explicit annotation of data ; but it doesn't matter if the models already trained on the entire Internet, and it's not like a game where it can come up with effectively new training data for itself?

Unsupervised is basically clustering. Alphago is RL - winning or losing a game is a form of supervision.

Unsupervised is something where there is no intrinsic reward signal. In pre training, predicting the next token and seeing that it matches is a reward signal, hence it is self supervised.

Re: Greg Brockman interview [video]

#130

Post by jmalicki »

cold_harbor wrote: post #74
jmalicki wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

pretraining isn't unsupervised, it is self-supervised - meaning it is moderately more scale limited.

fair point — OpenAI's original plan literally said "solve unsupervised learning". the self-supervised distinction wasnt really standard til after BERT/GPT popularized it

I think it's an extremely important distinction because self supervised learning has real inherent reward signals. Something like clustering does not.
Post reply on HN