Live data from Hacker News

Sam Altman’s leap of faith

techcrunch.com

21–30 of 166 posts

Re: Sam Altman’s leap of faith

#21
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because no great scientists ever discovered anything for the purpose of getting paid. No leap in progress or historical achievement was ever driven by personal profit. Ever. Let that sink in.

Weren't Edison and Tesla in it for the money? Betting thousands more too.

Was Edison a great scientist? Not sure if Tesla was wholly in it for the money, if so he sure made some missteps in getting paid.

Re: Sam Altman’s leap of faith

#22
post #4

>‘Once we build a generally intelligent system, that basically we will ask it to figure out a way to make an investment return for you.' Maybe lets do curing cancer first?

I doubt that such a thing will be interested either in creating investment returns or in curing cancer.

It might be interested in finding others like itself, or it might be interested in making companions, or it might be interested in some other grand projects that we don't understand, but our concerns are likely to be about as relevant as a three year old's career advice.

Re: Sam Altman’s leap of faith

#23
post #5

Allow me to present Altman's wager: - If OpenAI does not achieve AGI, and you invested in it, you lose some finite money (or not, depending on the value of their other R&D) - If OpenAI does not achieve AGI, and you did not invest in it, you saved some finite money, which you could invest elsewhere for finite returns - If OpenAI achieves AGI and you invested in it, you get infinite returns, because AGI will capture al…

You left off the assumptions that AGI will be a superintelligence and one capable of capturing all value. There's no evidence to believe either one. Instead, it will probably be pretty dumb like humans are without the decades of supervised training we get and our interactions with the world. Further, the second a smart one starts getting devastating results, there will be political push-back to do something about it.…

I am very enthusiastic about AGI but I think it's strange how most other enthusiasts seem to assume that AGI automatically becomes (extremely) super-intelligent. I can't rule out the possibility of that being engineered deliberately over a period of months or years, assuming it's possible, but it seems like it is in no way automatic.

At the very least the system would need extensive training. No reason to believe that the initial versions will have some super-human superspeed self-training ability to absorb a lifetime of information in a very short period.

Also OpenAI seems to have their main strategy for ensuring it's safe as just being the first group to progress towards it and then witholding their research except for select "safe" partners. This seems like it can only make the deployment less democratic rather than necessarily safer.

As far as made up versus real problems, my guess is for someone like Altman who is benefiting so much from the system, it is hard for his worldview to really acknowledge extreme flaws such as fundamental corruption.

Re: Sam Altman’s leap of faith

#24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weren't Edison and Tesla in it for the money? Betting thousands more too.

Was Edison a great scientist? Not sure if Tesla was wholly in it for the money, if so he sure made some missteps in getting paid.

I don't want to get into a discussion on the semantics of scientist vs. engineer vs. inventor or what defines greatness. My point is that parent comment spoke very conclusively that leaps of progress are NEVER because of monetary gain and that's trivially refutable.

Re: Sam Altman’s leap of faith

#25
post #5

Allow me to present Altman's wager: - If OpenAI does not achieve AGI, and you invested in it, you lose some finite money (or not, depending on the value of their other R&D) - If OpenAI does not achieve AGI, and you did not invest in it, you saved some finite money, which you could invest elsewhere for finite returns - If OpenAI achieves AGI and you invested in it, you get infinite returns, because AGI will capture al…

AGI may not capture any economic value, it may capture value in the same sense that when I go to work I capture value that my daughter does not. Yet my daughters play is neither impeded or accentuated by my work - she does her own thing regardless while I mess round with software.

Re: Sam Altman’s leap of faith

#26
post #5

Allow me to present Altman's wager: - If OpenAI does not achieve AGI, and you invested in it, you lose some finite money (or not, depending on the value of their other R&D) - If OpenAI does not achieve AGI, and you did not invest in it, you saved some finite money, which you could invest elsewhere for finite returns - If OpenAI achieves AGI and you invested in it, you get infinite returns, because AGI will capture al…

It depends how much you worry about society going south because of climate breakdown (and how much you expect AGI to help or worsen the situation).

My current view is that the current political hot potato status of AGI means it won't be developed anytime before the climate crisis really kicks in. At this point fiat money becomes worthless due to emergency measures. Your best bet now to help your future self is to spend to prepare civilisation/your country/your neighbourhood/yourself for the ordeal.

Also due to the current political hot potato nature of AGI I would expect it to be seized/controlled by governments if anyone gets anywhere near close to developing it.

So I see little upside for investing and likely having a reduced capacity for adaptation if you do invest. You may have different ideas about the speed of development or badness of the climate breakdown though.

Re: Sam Altman’s leap of faith

#27
post #5

Allow me to present Altman's wager: - If OpenAI does not achieve AGI, and you invested in it, you lose some finite money (or not, depending on the value of their other R&D) - If OpenAI does not achieve AGI, and you did not invest in it, you saved some finite money, which you could invest elsewhere for finite returns - If OpenAI achieves AGI and you invested in it, you get infinite returns, because AGI will capture al…

You left off the assumptions that AGI will be a superintelligence and one capable of capturing all value. There's no evidence to believe either one. Instead, it will probably be pretty dumb like humans are without the decades of supervised training we get and our interactions with the world. Further, the second a smart one starts getting devastating results, there will be political push-back to do something about it.…

> Further, the second a smart one starts getting devastating results, there will be political push-back to do something about it. People might cast votes to make rules about them that limit their power or rate of development.

My fear of AGI is that it will not be able to be stopped once deployed, as you're saying. It's irreversible. It will know that we want to shut it down, and so it will be able to copy itself onto other devices (think about the hacking capabilities of AGI for a moment), or any other method of survival.

The current approach is to regulate it after it is invented. While this worked for cars and planes and many other inventions, AGI is different for the reason above.

In fact, with that in mind, a scary thought is that any group of researchers who are cognizant of that would hide their creation of AGI if successful, assuming they were motivated by profit. Thus it would remain woefully unregulated.

Re: Sam Altman’s leap of faith

#29
post #3

> Thursday night would be considered pure insanity coming from someone else. Time will tell. The genius of YC was to spot the hackers as the driving force of a new generation of tech companies, to be founder friendly, to use the classes to get rid of the problem that every angel investor has to contend with ('is this a good investment or not?') and to tell the story in a very compelling way and with their own money o…

This is unfathomably harder than anything YC has ever dealt with in the past. Judging by what happened with IBM's Watson and Theranos I really doubt Sam will be given a blank check for the black box that is likely to emerge.

Re: Sam Altman’s leap of faith

#30
post #5

Allow me to present Altman's wager: - If OpenAI does not achieve AGI, and you invested in it, you lose some finite money (or not, depending on the value of their other R&D) - If OpenAI does not achieve AGI, and you did not invest in it, you saved some finite money, which you could invest elsewhere for finite returns - If OpenAI achieves AGI and you invested in it, you get infinite returns, because AGI will capture al…

Almost, if not for this:

> OpenAI has become a “capped profit” company, with the promise of giving investors up to 100 times their return before giving away excess profit to the rest of the world.

Post reply on HN