Congrats on the investment, but this release reads like a parody. I believe that building a beneficial warp-drive engine will be the most important technological development in human history, with the potential to shape the trajectory of humanity. The aliens we're sure to encounter will be capable of mastering more fields than any one human — like a tool which combines the skills of Curie, Turing, and Bach. An alien…
Do you have a link to the TED talk on your warp drive?
Your company sounds like it's doing amazing things, and these are exactly the kind of world-changing ideas I listen to TED to hear about. (/s)
(I work at OpenAI.) It comes down to whether you believe AGI is achievable. We've talked about why we think it might be: https://medium.com/syncedreview/openai-founder-short-term-ag... , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHCSNsLKHfM And we certainly have more of a plan for building it than warp drives :). EDIT: I personally think the case for near-term AGI is strong enough that it'd be hard for me work on any other pro…
> It comes down to whether you believe AGI is achievable. No, it does not. I very much believe AI (or AGI, as you call it) is achievable, but may I remind you that some years after the invention of neural networks, Norbert Wiener, one of the greatest minds of his generations, said that the secret of intelligence would be unlocked within five years, and Alan Turing -- a component of your very own post-pre-AGI era's AG…
Insects are super predictable. They almost always act identically in response to the same stimuli, which is why cockroaches will always eat poisoned bait if it's within a foot of them, no matter the circumstance, while rats are wiley.
> It comes down to whether you believe AGI is achievable. No, it does not. I very much believe AI (or AGI, as you call it) is achievable, but may I remind you that some years after the invention of neural networks, Norbert Wiener, one of the greatest minds of his generations, said that the secret of intelligence would be unlocked within five years, and Alan Turing -- a component of your very own post-pre-AGI era's AG…
So you’re saying.. it comes down to whether you believe AGI is achievable within our lifetime? Or even worth contributing to at all even. I think the parent has made their position pretty clear through their employment choices, that’s a level of skin in the game that naysayers don’t really have.
Perhaps I haven't been clear. I have no issue with the research OpenAI is performing, nor with anyone's beliefs in AI's imminence or their personal role in bringing it about. However, no one knows whether what they're doing is even on the right path towards AI, and certainly not when it will be achieved, plus the topic has been subject to overoptimism for decades now, so I do take issue with publicly calling what you do "working on AGI" or "pre-AGI" even though you have no idea whether that is what you're doing. Hopes and aspirations are good, but at this stage they fall far short of the level required for such public proclamations. My issue is with the language, not with the work.
>It comes down to whether you believe AGI is achievable How could it possibly not be achievable? We know for certain general intelligence is physically realizable - we exist.
By purely organic means of which we only have one current way of creating (e.g. via birth). The question is whether we can create AGI through other artificial means.
The distinction you make between organic and artificial life is understandable but perhaps not important, at least not philosophically.
Something created us. God, Mother Nature, The Universe (or Aliens) created us. So we can be pretty sure it can be done. Can _we_ do it? At this point in time nothing says we can.
Maybe they will use that 1 Billion on Azure fees lol.
That's like a month of CosmosDB storing a DVD worth of records!
I actually made up a pun today, CostMostDB. Hehe... But seriously, it's not that expensive. A client is using it quite heavily and they don't reach any particarly high level of spend at all for a corporation, but ymmv.
> It comes down to whether you believe AGI is achievable. No, it does not. I very much believe AI (or AGI, as you call it) is achievable, but may I remind you that some years after the invention of neural networks, Norbert Wiener, one of the greatest minds of his generations, said that the secret of intelligence would be unlocked within five years, and Alan Turing -- a component of your very own post-pre-AGI era's AG…
So you’re saying.. it comes down to whether you believe AGI is achievable within our lifetime? Or even worth contributing to at all even. I think the parent has made their position pretty clear through their employment choices, that’s a level of skin in the game that naysayers don’t really have.
There are plenty of people who worked on AI (as graduate students, as ML researchers at hot startups for self-driving cars, as pure researchers or supporting engineers at Google or Facebook, and many other places), and then left because once they saw how limited the research was they lost hope it was going to happen before they died.
Also while I fully understand and appreciate the necessity of OpenAI abandoning the 'open' part, it says a lot about who is going to benefit from this technology when you have investors who want to make money. It's just ironically poetic in this instance.
(I work at OpenAI.) It comes down to whether you believe AGI is achievable. We've talked about why we think it might be: https://medium.com/syncedreview/openai-founder-short-term-ag... , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHCSNsLKHfM And we certainly have more of a plan for building it than warp drives :). EDIT: I personally think the case for near-term AGI is strong enough that it'd be hard for me work on any other pro…
its odd when you say "hard to work on any other problem" given the mere possibility of agi. consider that the possibility of annhiliation is already a very real and present danger (nuclear weapons) by human beings. not to mention anything of the existential nature of what we are doing to the environment. thats partly why i left machine intelligence research to research improving human intelligence
> consider that the possibility of annhiliation is already a very real and present danger (nuclear weapons)
What concerns me about the hazards of developing technology like AGI is not simply that it could be dangerous (governments already possess dangerous technologies), but that it may have a revolutionary high-proliferation risk. We don't yet know what the practical barriers to or limitations of AGI are; are we working towards creating a pure fusion weapon that you can git-clone?
For all the talk of safety, and that concerns can be addressed by mass distribution of the benefits, is this just wishful thinking? Is that just paraphrasing the NRA: the only thing that can stop a bad guy with an AGI is a good guy with an AGI.
(I work at OpenAI.) It comes down to whether you believe AGI is achievable. We've talked about why we think it might be: https://medium.com/syncedreview/openai-founder-short-term-ag... , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHCSNsLKHfM And we certainly have more of a plan for building it than warp drives :). EDIT: I personally think the case for near-term AGI is strong enough that it'd be hard for me work on any other pro…
> It comes down to whether you believe AGI is achievable. No, it does not. I very much believe AI (or AGI, as you call it) is achievable, but may I remind you that some years after the invention of neural networks, Norbert Wiener, one of the greatest minds of his generations, said that the secret of intelligence would be unlocked within five years, and Alan Turing -- a component of your very own post-pre-AGI era's AG…
>OpenAI is not actually building AGI. Maybe it hopes that the things it is working on could be the path to an eventual AGI. OpenAI knows this, as does Microsoft.
Yes they are? They are making breakthroughs/incremental advances that required to get there, and building components along the way. It would be like you saying well Henry Ford isn't building a vehicle, he's just building a wheel, and a tire, and an engine, etc...
I don't see how it could be. What can insect brains do that we couldn't get AI to do?
Pretty much everything that insects do is beyond our current AI and engineering tech. Ignoring the "engineering" feats that biological beings perform such as replication, respiration and turning other plants and creatures into their own energy source, their behaviour is very sophisticated. Imagine programming a drone to perform the work of a foraging Bee, using a computer that fits into a brain the size of a grain of…
Aside from the miniaturization, I'd be surprised if we couldn't make an exact simulacrum of a honey bee in software today, to the limits of our understanding of honey bees.
As with AI... a system can be simulated to a given level of fidelity without necessarily simulating the entire original underlying system.
(I work at OpenAI.) It comes down to whether you believe AGI is achievable. We've talked about why we think it might be: https://medium.com/syncedreview/openai-founder-short-term-ag... , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHCSNsLKHfM And we certainly have more of a plan for building it than warp drives :). EDIT: I personally think the case for near-term AGI is strong enough that it'd be hard for me work on any other pro…
> It comes down to whether you believe AGI is achievable. No, it does not. I very much believe AI (or AGI, as you call it) is achievable, but may I remind you that some years after the invention of neural networks, Norbert Wiener, one of the greatest minds of his generations, said that the secret of intelligence would be unlocked within five years, and Alan Turing -- a component of your very own post-pre-AGI era's AG…
> AI (or AGI, as you call it)
AI and AGI may have meant the same thing a long time ago, but the term "AI" has been used almost ubiquitously to represent things that are not AGI for so long now, that I don't think the terms are interchangeable any longer.