161–170 of 260 posts
This is so weird to me. Yes, she was there at OpenAI and by all accounts a super respected non researcher . Clearly she's incredible, her reputation proceeds her etc. but is operational strength (being a good exec) really what gets to AGI? Feels almost like cargo-culting.
Maybe the product she’s pitched has massive commercial potential.
Who is this person and why is she attempting to skinwalk the name of a really cool computer company (creators of the Connection Machine)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"it wants to build artificial intelligence systems that are safer, more reliable and aimed at a broader number of applications than rivals". If only I had had that idea, maybe I could have raised $2B.
I am working on a pitch deck for a startup that is going to build language models that aren't just safe and reliable but they are actually CONSCIOUS. consciousmachines.ai Such an obvious next step. Conscious, ethical, inclusive machines.
> The fundraise also saw participation from AI chip giant Nvidia This is really obvious 'round-tripping' no? Nvidia invests in startups that are going to spend a majority of their funds on GPUs, Nvidia's revenue goes up, Nvidia's stock goes up, Nvidia makes more 'investments' in startups who use that investment to continue the cycle?
Looking at the valuation I don't get how they would not be round-tripping and otherwise cooking the books a lot right now (not necesarily limited to this case, but more in general).
Very strong Y2K bubble vibes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could be, or it could be a simple flawed net present value calculation, similar to Effective Altruism. SBF said if he had a die and it had a 99% chance of killing everyone and a 1% chance of making the world 1 million times happier he would roll the die. Repeatedly. And Silicon Valley loved him. I think AI is a similar calculation. Humans are tearing themselves apart and the only thing worth betting on is AI that can…
I think they act as if making these bets is the only way to save themselves. None of them care about humanity obviously.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but presumably the VCs have some idea of what Thinking Machines is building you imply that VCs are rational because bet their own money, which in current complicated world probably is not true. VC funds get money from complicated funnel likely including my/your retirement account and country public debt, VC managers likely receive bonuses for closed deals and not long term gains which may materialize in 10 years. S…
> you imply that VCs are rational because bet their own money, which in current complicated world probably is not true. Correct. Most VCs are using someone else's money. See Softbank. And making extremely poor judgements on how to use that money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's nothing to do with Thinking Machines as a company, it's to do with a VC that's content to bet two billion dollars on a company that has shown absolutely nothing, and the sorry state of affairs that represents.
> It's nothing to do with Thinking Machines as a company, it's to do with a VC that's content to bet two billion dollars on a company that has shown absolutely nothing, and the sorry state of affairs that represents. Why does it represent a "sorry state of affairs"? VCs are risking money they manage, it's not like they're putting anyone else at risk. Do we really prefer a world in which we don't take risks to develop…
I do see some value in it, we need to take risks with our capital and on a long term horizon it's fine.
But there has to be some rationale behind it at least, some evidence based approach.