151–160 of 711 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
its not even that, they have literally one argument and its nanobots
The more realistic argument is that AI will be used as a power amplifier by the already powerful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI art is already boring. its all a fad, eventually the cracks start to show and you can't unsee those cracks. very similar to bitcoin. tbh.
The interesting to boring scale depends on novelty. Given the ai oversaturation it works exactly as expected. AI Art is currently in very early stage. In the real art space (3d modeling, sculpting, animation, vfx, animation, rigging, retargeting), it could make huge breakthroughs and multiply true artists' productivity in significant ways
Are those the first cracks in the AI market bubble?
Is it a bubble if it’s useful and I use it dozens of time a day?
It's a bubble if the valuation is inflated beyond a level compared to a reasonable expected future value. Usefulness isn't part of that. The important bit is 'reasonable', which is also the subjective bit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is like a supervillain origin story, Greg and Sam are 100 % going to start something new now, even if it's just out of spite with how much both seem to have liked their work at OpenAI
Would they even be able to compete with OpenAI at this point? Even without Greg and Sam they have Ilya, the models they've trained so far, institutional knowledge, datasets and billions from Microsoft. Could OpenAI be at escape velocity anyway to AGI just continuing on the track it's been on?
GPT5 pre-training just ended I believe. Brock, Pachocki, Szymon Sidor, would have likely all been involved. These are huge losses. Pachocki led pre-training for GPT-4, and probably GPT-5. Brockman is the major engineer responsible for the efficiency improvements that enabled ChatGPT and GPT-4 to be even remotely cost-effective. That is a piece that is often overlooked, but OpenAI's advantage over the competition in c…
"Greg Brockman works 60 to 100 hours per week, and spends around 80% of the time coding. Former colleagues have described him as the hardest-working person at OpenAI." https://time.com/collection/time100-ai/6309033/greg-brockman...
As I said in the other thread, this is 100% a AI doomerist hijack.
Doomerism when it comes to technology has always been such a weird mindset to me. "oh no, they're gonna take the horses/horse buggies/telegram/landlines away!" "Goddamn, how dare they invent the bigger cannons!?" - Romans, 1453, in Constantinople probably. (One incident where I can use my exempt powers).
Have you used gpt4? it's reasoning capabilities match human ability. The more you think about it, the more scary the reality becomes. GPT 4 can reason through any mental exercise as well as a human. The rest of the work to make it autonomous is simple in comparison.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It can be useful in certain contexts, most certainly as a code co-pilot, but that and yours/others' usage doesn't change the fundamental mismatch between the limits of this tech and what Sam and others have hyped it up to do. We've already trained it on all the data there is, it's not going to get "smarter" and it'll always lack true subjective understanding, so the overhype has been real, indeed to bubble levels as…
> it's not going to get "smarter" and it'll always lack true subjective understanding What is your basis for those claims? Especially the first one; I would think it's obvious that it will get smarter; the only questions are how much and how quickly. As far as subjective understanding, we're getting into the nature of consciousness territory, but if it can perform the same tasks, it doesn't really impact the value.
1) we should agree on what we mean by smart or intelligent. That's really hard to do so let's narrow it down to "does not hallucinate" the way GPT does, or more high level has a subjective understanding of its own that another agent can reliably come to trust. I can tell you that AI/deep learning/LLM hallucination is a technically unsolvable problem, so it'll never get "smarter" in that way.
2) This connects to number 2. Humans and animals of course aren't infinitely "smart;" we fuck up and hallucinate in ways of our own, but that's just it, we have a grounded truth of our own, born of a body and emotional experience that grounds our rational experience, or the consciousness you talk about.
So my claim is really one claim, that AI cannot perform the same tasks or "true" intelligence level of a human in the sense of not hallucinating like GPT without having a subjective experience of its own.
There is no answer or understanding "out there;" it's all what we experience and come to understand.
This is my favorite topic. I have much more to share on it including working code, though at a level of an extremely simple organism (thinking we can skip to human level and even jump exponentially beyond that is what I'm calling out as BS).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Greg Brockman works 60 to 100 hours per week, and spends around 80% of the time coding. Former colleagues have described him as the hardest-working person at OpenAI." https://time.com/collection/time100-ai/6309033/greg-brockman...
I'm trying to read and reread this over and over again to make sense of this but to me it sounds like in the comments people speak as if Greg brockman resigned while in the article he is not amongst the three names who resigned. What am I missing here?
As I said in the other thread, this is 100% a AI doomerist hijack.
Doomerism when it comes to technology has always been such a weird mindset to me. "oh no, they're gonna take the horses/horse buggies/telegram/landlines away!" "Goddamn, how dare they invent the bigger cannons!?" - Romans, 1453, in Constantinople probably. (One incident where I can use my exempt powers).