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

OpenAI researchers warned board of AI breakthrough ahead of CEO ouster

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 1001 posts

Re: OpenAI researchers warned board of AI breakthrough ahead of CEO ouster

#241

Post by swatcoder »

mrandish wrote: post #207
gadders wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Entire text below to save the 4chan bits: part 1 There is a massive disagreement on AI safety and the definition of AGI. Microsoft invested heavily in OpenAI, but OpenAI's terms was that they could not use AGI to enrich themselves. According to OpenAI's constitution: AGI is explicitly carved out of all commercial and IP licensing agreements, including the ones with Microsoft. Sam Altman got dollar signs in his eyes w…

It's plausible that the three EA outside board members may have been concerned by reports of a breakthrough or maybe even alarmed by a demo. The part which doesn't seem plausible is about "declaring AGI" being so ill-defined. While we don't know the content of agreement behind MSFT's $13B investment, there's no way that the army of lawyers who drafted the contract left the most important term undefined or within to O…

It's constrained by the terms in their charter, which a sane outsider might see as fantastical and no threat at all when making a deal.

It's easy to take advantage of people who have blinded themselves, as some of the board members at OpenAI have.

Re: OpenAI researchers warned board of AI breakthrough ahead of CEO ouster

#243

Post by WhitneyLand »

dougmwne wrote: post #58
tsunamifury wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GPT4 solves this problem In any combination easily. What do so many posters seem to claim to have stumped it?

Because I did stump it, not claim to. Used GPT-4 near when it was released, fed it variations on the problem for about an hour. I found it to be a fascinating exercise because it was teaching be the difference between knowledge (training set) and intelligence (generalization).

What you did many months ago doesn’t mean anything about the state of the art. in case you haven’t noticed, this field is advancing rapidly to say the least. GPT-4 has not stayed static.

Post your problem now and we can easily see if you’re right.

Re: OpenAI researchers warned board of AI breakthrough ahead of CEO ouster

#244

Post by lupire »

xanderlewis wrote: post #37
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is enough there to make me believe it's real. After all, a big objection to LLMs is they are just "fancy autocomplete" or "stochastic parrots". I don't agree, but LLMs famously are "bad at math", that is you can't really train them to do math unless they've seen previous calculations with similar numbers in their training sets. Training an AI system to truly do arbitrary mathematical logic (think "compl…

Mathematical logic doesn’t refer to ‘complex word problems with big numbers’. The reason that LLMs struggle (well, are hopeless currently) with mathematics problems is not because it involves arithmetic (although this is already enough of a struggle) but because it requires a conceptual understanding of the ideas rather than just being about manipulating language — a lot of the goings-on are hidden in the semantic wo…

No. LLMs are great at statistical thinking but terrible at discrete thinking. Logic is discrete. "Concepts" is a distraction.

Re: OpenAI researchers warned board of AI breakthrough ahead of CEO ouster

#245

Post by bmitc »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #17
V__ wrote: post #3

> warning of a powerful artificial intelligence discovery that they said could threaten humanity, > Given vast computing resources, the new model was able to solve certain mathematical problems, [..] Though only performing math on the level of grade-school students, acing such tests made researchers very optimistic about Q*’s future success, the source said. I somehow expected a bit more.

I think there is enough there to make me believe it's real. After all, a big objection to LLMs is they are just "fancy autocomplete" or "stochastic parrots". I don't agree, but LLMs famously are "bad at math", that is you can't really train them to do math unless they've seen previous calculations with similar numbers in their training sets. Training an AI system to truly do arbitrary mathematical logic (think "compl…

> they are just "fancy autocomplete" or "stochastic parrots". I don't agree

I am curious as to why you don't agree. Is that not exactly what they are? As in, they are literally statistically parroting what they've been trained on. If they're trained on a little, they can only parrot a little. If they're trained on a lot, they can parrot a lot but not anything more.

Re: OpenAI researchers warned board of AI breakthrough ahead of CEO ouster

#246

Post by bhy »

ilaksh wrote: post #12

Could it be named in reference to something like the A* search algorithm? What if Q stands for Query in transformer attention? How would that type of search translate to transformers? They said that it's able to solve simple math problems. If it's related to A* then maybe it's trying to find a path to something. The answer to a word problem?

My bet is a general search algorithm similar AlphaGo that uses LLM as world model, and heuristic search to find the right path to goal. There's already evidence in academics that this can significantly boost model performance [1].

[1] https://llm-mcts.github.io/

Re: OpenAI researchers warned board of AI breakthrough ahead of CEO ouster

#247

Post by graycat »

AGI? Hmm. That's artificial general intelligence?

Do insects count? In a plastic box on my kitchen countertop were some potatoes that had been there too long. So, I started to see little black flies. Soon with a hose on a vacuum, sucked up dozens a day. Dumped the old potatoes and cleaned up the plastic box. Now see only 1-3 of the insects a day -- they are nearly all gone!

The insects have some intelligence to fly away as the hose moves close. But if the hose moves slowly, the insects wait too long to start to fly and when they do start the vacuum is strong enough to pull in the air they are flying in with the insects. Insects, not very smart. Dozens got killed, not very smart. I detected the cause and killed the insects -- a little bit smart.

Conclusion: Compared with a human, insects are not very smart.

Much the same argument can be made for worms, ants, fish, birds, raccoons, cats, dogs, .... So, when looking for AGI, insects, ..., dogs, ... are not intelligent.

Okay, the OpenAI training data -- Wikipedia, math libraries, the Web, ... -- likely will not have a solution for:

Given triangle ABC, by Euclidean construction, find D on AB and E on BC so that the lengths AD = DE = EC.

AI, here's your pencil, paper, straight edge, and compass -- go for it!

I can hear back by tomorrow????

Re: OpenAI researchers warned board of AI breakthrough ahead of CEO ouster

#248

Post by Seanambers »

gadders wrote: post #60

Weirdly enough, this sort of lines up with a theory posted on 4chan 4 days ago. The gist being that if the version is formally declared AGI, it can't be licensed to Microsoft and others for commercial gain. As a result Altman wants it not to be called AGI, other board members do. Archived link below. NB THIS IS 4CHAN - THERE WILL OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE. https://archive.ph/sFMXa

Man, 4chan always got the deetz!

Re: OpenAI researchers warned board of AI breakthrough ahead of CEO ouster

#249

Post by bmitc »

xanderlewis wrote: post #77
tyingq wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen it gets tripped up if you mix something common with something uncommon. ChatGPT chokes on, for example: "Two trains on separate tracks, 30 miles from each other are approaching each other, each at a speed of 10 mph. How long before they crash into each other?"

Yes. Though I’d say that example is a bit mean (it’s a trick question) since the answer has expected type but whose actual answer is something like “don’t be stupid; they’re not even on the same track”. It’s like asking “if I add three apples to two apples, how many pears do I get?” and being surprised when the LLM says “5 pears”. It’s the sort of thing that’s avoidable if the question is written properly.

This comes up time and time again. People claim these models are mind blowing. But then someone will post something where the model falls flat on its face, and they just get a bunch of that's too complex or that's the wrong type of thing to ask.

So it ends up that these models are awesome if you ask them questions from a narrow set of things and if you assume what they respond with is correct.

Re: OpenAI researchers warned board of AI breakthrough ahead of CEO ouster

#250

Post by rst »

germinalphrase wrote: post #69
ChuckMcM wrote: post #5

Things are gonna be lit about 30 seconds after AGI is created. Gotta practice being "Goodlife" early in case that happens. :-)

“being ‘Goodlife’” Is this a reference?

To Fred Saberhagen's Berserker stories -- about interstellar war machines which exterminated their creators, and then kept on exterminating all other life whenever they could find it. "Goodlife" is the Berserkers' term for life-forms that assist the Berserkers, typically to try to live a little longer themselves.
Post reply on HN