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

Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 623 posts

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#221

Post by TheIronYuppie »

mr_overalls wrote: post #85
mattferderer wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My "guess" is they're offering $1B worth of Azure services. Which costs MSFT probably much less than $1B. My "guess" is that it means MSFT has access to sell products based off the research OpenAI does to MSFT's customers. Having early access to advanced research means MSFT could easily make this money back by selling better AI tools to their customers. Also a great time to point out that while "Microsoft is not a ch…

> by selling better AI tools to their customers Microsoft really needs this. ML.NET is quite anemic compared to the industry-standard AI toolkits: TensorFlow, theano, scikit-learn, Torch, Keras, etc. https://dotnet.microsoft.com/apps/machinelearning-ai/ml-dotn...

Disclosure: I work at Azure in AI/ML

Another way to think about it is that for folks building in .NET, ML.NET makes it easy for them to start using many of the ML techniques without having to learn something new.

On top of that, we FULLY support all the industry standard tools - TF, Keras, PyTorch, Kubeflow, SciKit, etc etc. We even ship a VM that lets you get started with any of them in one click (https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/virtual-machines/...) and our hosted offering supports them as well! (e.g. TF - https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/machine-learning/serv...)

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#222

Post by breck »

pron wrote: post #220
breck wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have no idea what's required to achieve AI Yes, we do. Lots of data, lots of training, better algorithms, more understanding of the brain...At this point we still need 10x+ improvements in a lot of areas, but it's pretty clear what we need to do. If you can process around 100 petabytes per second (1 Google Index of data per second), you could fully simulate a human being, including their brain. We're still a lit…

> Yes, we do. Lots of data, lots of training, better algorithms, more understanding of the brain.. So to build AI all that remains is to understand how it could work. > but it's pretty clear what we need to do It isn't (unless by "clear" you mean as clear as in your statement above). I've been following some of the more theoretical papers in the field, and we're barely even at the theory forming stage. > but it's pre…

> I've been following some of the more theoretical papers in the field, and we're barely even at the theory forming stage.

I read those papers too. And I write code and train models day in and day out. I could get very specific on what needs to be done, but that's what we do at our job. If you're curious, I'd say join the field.

I agree with you in that I don't think for a second anyone can make an accurate prediction of when we will AGI, but I have no doubt that it will be relatively soon, and that OpenAI will likely be one of the leaders, if not the leaders in creating it.

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#223

Post by MegaButts »

breck wrote: post #210
pron wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are making breakthroughs/incremental advances that required to get there They don't know that. We have no idea what's required to achieve AI. Now I don't know how long before Ford actually built cars he started saying he's building cars, but if Wikipedia is to be believed, it could not have been more than three-four years. Also, when he started building cars, he pretty much knew what's required to build them.…

> We have no idea what's required to achieve AI Yes, we do. Lots of data, lots of training, better algorithms, more understanding of the brain...At this point we still need 10x+ improvements in a lot of areas, but it's pretty clear what we need to do. If you can process around 100 petabytes per second (1 Google Index of data per second), you could fully simulate a human being, including their brain. We're still a lit…

> Yes, we do. Lots of data, lots of training, better algorithms, more understanding of the brain...At this point we still need 10x+ improvements in a lot of areas, but it's pretty clear what we need to do.

This is absurd. How much data? How much training? What kind of training? How much better do the algorithms need to be? How do you define better? Also we literally don't even know how our brains work, so we don't know how "actual" intelligence works, but you're saying we have a clear road map for simulating it?

Your entire argument distill down to "we just need to do the same things, but better." And even that statement might be wrong! What if standard silicon is fundamentally unsuited for AGI, and we need to overhaul our computing platforms to use more analog electronics like memristors? What if everything we think we know about AI algorithms ends up being a dead end and we've already achieved the asymptote?

I'm not saying AI research is bad. I'm saying it is absolutely unknown by ANYONE what it will take to achieve AI. That's why it's pure research instead of engineering.

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#224

Post by tedivm »

breck wrote: post #210
pron wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are making breakthroughs/incremental advances that required to get there They don't know that. We have no idea what's required to achieve AI. Now I don't know how long before Ford actually built cars he started saying he's building cars, but if Wikipedia is to be believed, it could not have been more than three-four years. Also, when he started building cars, he pretty much knew what's required to build them.…

> We have no idea what's required to achieve AI Yes, we do. Lots of data, lots of training, better algorithms, more understanding of the brain...At this point we still need 10x+ improvements in a lot of areas, but it's pretty clear what we need to do. If you can process around 100 petabytes per second (1 Google Index of data per second), you could fully simulate a human being, including their brain. We're still a lit…

These are all assumptions, and there is a lot of disagreement in the academic community around it.

Humans don't seem to need anywhere near the same level of data or training that our current models need. That alone is a sign that deep learning may not be enough. The focus on deep learning research has a lot of useful benefits, so I'm not discounting that, but there are a decent amount of smart people who don't believe it's going to lead us to AGI.

Source: I also work in medical research, and am doing deep learning- and I've worked for a company that's focused on AGI, and I've worked with several of the OpenAI researchers.

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#225

Post by tim333 »

adrianmonk wrote: post #195
thfuran wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I'm not advocating for the opposing view (or any view) here, and this is just informational, but since you did specifically ask how... If you want to talk about philosophy (including philosophy of mind but also more basic stuff like materialism vs. dualism), then it's not for certain. I'd hazard a guess most engineers are materialists and reductionists, and from that point of view, yes, it seems like a slam dunk that…

There's quite a lot of experimental evidence in the "purely physical phenomenon" direction. Things like brain surgery, neural implants and mind altering drugs probably wouldn't work as well if they were trying to interact with your non physical spirit.

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#226

Post by gnode »

codelemur wrote: post #28
arethuza wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, hopefully if someone creates a benevolent AGI then it should be good news for everyone.

[EDIT]: friendly -> non-friendly oops. That's what seems so confusing about HN replies here. (Non-friendly) AGI is an extreme existential risk (depending on who you listen to). I'm perfectly fine with rewarding the org that's responsible for researching friendly AGI to do it _right_ (extremely contingent on that last bit).

What if friendliness is not a property of the technology, but of the use? With all the potential concerns of AGI, I think nuclear technology is a good analogue. It has great potential for peaceful use, but proliferation of nuclear weapons is a so-far inseparable problem of the technology. It's also relatively easy to use nuclear technology unsafely compared to safely.

The precedent for general intelligence is not good. The only example we know of (ourselves) is a known existential threat.

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#227

Post by breck »

pron wrote: post #211
breck wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> calling it "pre-AGI" pretentious to the level of delusion. I don't think you know what you are talking about. Do you do Deep Learning? If you are not actively engaged in the field, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss others who are (especially not others who are at the top of the field). That being said, you brought up some interesting points, even if I think your overall position is wrong--I think OpenAI is definite…

I was actively engaged in the field in the late-nineties when AI was also five years around the corner. I’ve mostly lost interest since then, and the disappointment that is deep learning has only dulled my enthusiasm further (not that it hasn’t achieved some cool things, but it’s a long way from where we’d thought we’d be by now).

> I was actively engaged in the field in the late-nineties

So was Geoffrey Everest Hinton

> I’ve mostly lost interest since then

but he didn't give up.

If you expect someone to just hand us AGI in a nicely wrapped package with a bow, with all the details neatly described, you are absolutely right, that's really far off!

But for the record there are many people actively grinding it out in the field, day in and day out, who don't give up when things get hard.

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#228

Post by pron »

breck wrote: post #219
pron wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> the topic has been subject to overoptimism for decades now, But so has every other big idea that went on to become reality, like planes (da Vinci was drawing designs for planes over 400 years before the first working ones). > no one knows whether what they're doing is even on the right path towards AI This is completely wrong. That would be like saying "no one knows if working on a wing is on the right path to flig…

> But so has every other big idea that went on to become reality, like planes (da Vinci was drawing designs for planes over 400 years before the first working ones).

And so has every other big idea that didn't become reality, and that was the majority. Again, I have no problem with AI research whatsoever, but the prose was still eyebrow-raising considering the actual state of affairs.

> They are very similar.

They are not. The main role of NNs is learning, which they still mostly do pretty much with backpropagation gradient-descent (+ heuristics). The brain does not learn with backpropagation.

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#229

Post by bobcostas55 »

houzertuch wrote: post #215
gdb wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(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…

AGI will the the worst thing that has ever happened to humanity. Even if you can’t see that, you can see that it has the potential to be very bad. I know this because OpenAI literature always stresses that AGI has to be guided and developed by the right people because the alternative is rather unpleasant. So essentially its a gamble and you know it. With everyone’s lives at stake. But instead of asking everyone wheth…

Humanity was the worst thing that ever happened to the Neanderthals.

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#230

Post by breck »

pron wrote: post #228
breck wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the topic has been subject to overoptimism for decades now, But so has every other big idea that went on to become reality, like planes (da Vinci was drawing designs for planes over 400 years before the first working ones). > no one knows whether what they're doing is even on the right path towards AI This is completely wrong. That would be like saying "no one knows if working on a wing is on the right path to flig…

> But so has every other big idea that went on to become reality, like planes (da Vinci was drawing designs for planes over 400 years before the first working ones). And so has every other big idea that didn't become reality, and that was the majority. Again, I have no problem with AI research whatsoever, but the prose was still eyebrow-raising considering the actual state of affairs. > They are very similar. They ar…

> And so has every other big idea that didn't become reality, and that was the majority.

This is a really good point. Would be a fascinating read if someone were to collect all those examples and explore that a bit.

Post reply on HN