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

Sam Altman Won in Court Against Elon Musk. But, We All Lost

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–159 of 159 posts

Re: Sam Altman Won in Court Against Elon Musk. But, We All Lost

#151

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

amake wrote: post #147
ekianjo wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is disagreement mostly because of deeply insecure people.

"You only disagree with me because you are insecure" This is not a convincing argument.

I’m just not sure what a convincing argument could look like anymore. We’re past the point where there’s any concrete intellectual capability that AIs can’t demonstrate, and it’s rare these days for anyone to even try to present me with one. I would not say “insecure”, but it’s clear to me that the remaining holdouts have religious objections at this point: you can’t call any LLM intelligent, no matter what it’s capable of outputting, since it doesn’t have a soul like me. Nothing I can really say to argue with that.

Re: Sam Altman Won in Court Against Elon Musk. But, We All Lost

#152

Post by amake »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #151
amake wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You only disagree with me because you are insecure" This is not a convincing argument.

I’m just not sure what a convincing argument could look like anymore. We’re past the point where there’s any concrete intellectual capability that AIs can’t demonstrate, and it’s rare these days for anyone to even try to present me with one. I would not say “insecure”, but it’s clear to me that the remaining holdouts have religious objections at this point: you can’t call any LLM intelligent, no matter what it’s capa…

> We’re past the point where there’s any concrete intellectual capability that AIs can’t demonstrate

How about "will" and "desire"? These seem like things an actual intelligence would have.

> it’s clear to me that the remaining holdouts have religious objections at this point

From where I sit, it sure seems like claims of having achieved AGI are religious in nature.

- The very definition of AGI is not agreed upon, much less definitions of god

- Despite the burden of proof being on those claiming AGI, every request for proof is spurned with a "no u"

Re: Sam Altman Won in Court Against Elon Musk. But, We All Lost

#153

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

amake wrote: post #152
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m just not sure what a convincing argument could look like anymore. We’re past the point where there’s any concrete intellectual capability that AIs can’t demonstrate, and it’s rare these days for anyone to even try to present me with one. I would not say “insecure”, but it’s clear to me that the remaining holdouts have religious objections at this point: you can’t call any LLM intelligent, no matter what it’s capa…

> We’re past the point where there’s any concrete intellectual capability that AIs can’t demonstrate How about "will" and "desire"? These seem like things an actual intelligence would have. > it’s clear to me that the remaining holdouts have religious objections at this point From where I sit, it sure seems like claims of having achieved AGI are religious in nature. - The very definition of AGI is not agreed upon, mu…

It's pretty straightforward to give a modern agentic system will and desire. I routinely set up AI instances that want to resolve a bug or open a PR, and they continue to take autonomous action towards that goal as long as is necessary to achieve it. Perhaps you mean something else? If so what would be an example?

> Despite the burden of proof being on those claiming AGI, every request for proof is spurned with a "no u"

I think you're misunderstanding the dynamics here. I genuinely don't understand what people mean when they say cutting-edge AI is not generally intelligent. To my ears it's like saying that an electric car isn't really capable of driving. In order to even begin to engage in that discussion, I'd have to understand where the person saying it is coming from and why they don't consider every EV on the road to be a counterexample.

Re: Sam Altman Won in Court Against Elon Musk. But, We All Lost

#154

Post by amake »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #153
amake wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We’re past the point where there’s any concrete intellectual capability that AIs can’t demonstrate How about "will" and "desire"? These seem like things an actual intelligence would have. > it’s clear to me that the remaining holdouts have religious objections at this point From where I sit, it sure seems like claims of having achieved AGI are religious in nature. - The very definition of AGI is not agreed upon, mu…

It's pretty straightforward to give a modern agentic system will and desire. I routinely set up AI instances that want to resolve a bug or open a PR, and they continue to take autonomous action towards that goal as long as is necessary to achieve it. Perhaps you mean something else? If so what would be an example? > Despite the burden of proof being on those claiming AGI, every request for proof is spurned with a "no…

> It's pretty straightforward to give a modern agentic system will and desire

That is your will and desire. They are following your instructions. There is no "intelligence" there.

> I genuinely don't understand what people mean when they say cutting-edge AI is not generally intelligent

I don't really know where to go either. From my perspective you are too far down the rabbit hole and I don't think we can come to a meaningful shared understanding.

Good luck with that.

Re: Sam Altman Won in Court Against Elon Musk. But, We All Lost

#155

Post by mik09 »

pj_mukh wrote: post #19

This is a weird fantasy among the literati that AI is a "scam", that we can "expose" them with lots of palace intrigue coverage and SBF or Elizabeth Holmes them away and then everything will be right in the world. Some of the best models are Chinese and Open-source and so-so good and Sam Altman is wholly irrelevant to them. Some folks are in for a very rude awakening.

[dead]

Re: Sam Altman Won in Court Against Elon Musk. But, We All Lost

#156

Post by ekianjo »

amake wrote: post #147
ekianjo wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is disagreement mostly because of deeply insecure people.

"You only disagree with me because you are insecure" This is not a convincing argument.

It's not a convincing argument because nothing will convince people who turn to emotions.

Re: Sam Altman Won in Court Against Elon Musk. But, We All Lost

#157

Post by pdonis »

danaris wrote: post #143
pdonis wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, ok. I certainly agree with that. My question would be whether it's even possible for we humans as we are now to make an AI with a deliberate eye to ethical behavior. Sam Altman clearly is not someone who can do that (nor is Elon Musk, for that matter). But I'm not sure I know of anyone who is .

I mean, there are plenty of people with the ethical chops to do so, and, I daresay, plenty who combine that with the technical chops. What's lacking is the money & power. Having/obtaining enough of those to be able to compete with the likes of OpenAI and Google is, unfortunately, nearly guaranteed to result in a deeply ethically compromised person at best .

> there are plenty of people with the ethical chops to do so, and, I daresay, plenty who combine that with the technical chops.

Can you name some?

> What's lacking is the money & power.

How do you know money and power wouldn't make whoever you're thinking of just as corrupt as the people who have the money and power now?

Re: Sam Altman Won in Court Against Elon Musk. But, We All Lost

#158

Post by anuramat »

ryantgtg wrote: post #125
anuramat wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> wrong 10% of the time that doesn't sound nearly as bad as you think it does; I don't see how ethics are relevant here either, unless oil is also somehow a scam regardless, one must be delusional to deny the fact that it's useful tech "but they're evil" is not an argument

> deny the fact that it's useful tech Is this denial in the room with us now?

I'd say "plagiarism machine" implies that

Re: Sam Altman Won in Court Against Elon Musk. But, We All Lost

#159

Post by amake »

ekianjo wrote: post #156
amake wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You only disagree with me because you are insecure" This is not a convincing argument.

It's not a convincing argument because nothing will convince people who turn to emotions.

I asked for evidence and you accuse me of "turning to emotions".

Honestly I don't know what to say. Good luck to you.

Post reply on HN