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

261–270 of 1001 posts

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

#261

Post by slaterbug »

WhitneyLand wrote: post #227
roflyear wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try this: There's this person standing in a field, and with them is a balloon, a vacuum cleaner, and a magical creature of unknown origin. They need to get across to the woods at the end of the field, and do so safely. They can only go together: they get very, extremely lonely if they do not travel together, and they will not be safe because of this loneliness. If left together, the baloon would suck up the vacuum cl…

Solved zero shot. Next? https://chat.openai.com/share/91392131-90ff-45ab-8ea4-963f73...

I'm confused, in your example it immediately got it wrong by leaving the vacuum cleaner and balloon together, and then does it again in step 6.

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

#263

Post by tyingq »

tnjm wrote: post #260
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?"

But if you make the input slightly more explicit: "Two trains on different and 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?" ...it spots the trick: https://chat.openai.com/share/ee68f810-0c12-4904-8276-a4541d... Likewise, if you add emphasis it understands too: "Two trains on separate tracks, 30 miles from each other are a…

I did try adding "parallel" and it didn't answer differently.

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

#264

Post by 22c »

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

Discussed in another thread, but what OpenAI might call AGI and what other people might call AGI are two different things:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38316378#38319586

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

#265

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

keithalewis wrote: post #222
newyankee wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is not just individual wealth but also wealth of nations. Certain countries have been more successful through industrialization, colonization and hoarding a lot of global resources. It is likely this will continue in the future.

A true Scotsman wrote a book about this, _The Wealth of Nations_. He observed how politicians use wars to increase taxes. Tech companies are exploiting our fear of AGI to get voluntary taxes. Time to give Henney Penny a call.

This is your conclusion from the drama at OpenAI? The tech companies are "exploiting our fear of AGI to get voluntary taxes". I don't know what planet you're on, but it doesn't seem to be the same one I think I'm on.

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

#266

Post by mvdtnz »

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.

If we're going to call these things "AI" (which I absolutely oppose) I think it's not unreasonable to expect them to get this right. A 5 year old would understand you some get pears by adding apples together.

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

#267

Post by dmix »

adriand wrote: post #258

This article is almost entirely unsourced, citing two anonymous people who are “familiar” with a supposed letter that Reuters has not seen. This does not qualify as news. It doesn’t even rise to the level of informed speculation!

We've also already seen one random Google AI 'safety' employee trying to tell the media that AGI is here because Google built a chatbot that sounded convincing, which obviously turned out to be bullshit/hysterical.

Asking who said these things is as important as asking what they think is possible.

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

#268

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

synaesthesisx wrote: post #151

Remember, about a month ago Sam posted a comment along the lines of "AI will be capable of superhuman persuasion well before it is superhuman at general intelligence, which may lead to very strange outcomes". The board was likely spooked by the recent breakthroughs (which were most likely achieved by combining transformers with another approach), and hit the panic button. Anything capable of "superhuman persuasion",…

Except that there's a fairly large body of evidence that persuasion is of limited use in shifting political opinion.

So the persuasion would need to be applied to something other than some sort of causative political-implication-laden argument.

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

#269

Post by gadders »

22c wrote: post #264
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

Discussed in another thread, but what OpenAI might call AGI and what other people might call AGI are two different things: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38316378#38319586

I just tried to Google the Open AI definition of AGI and found a reddit thread about someone editing the Wikipedia definition of AGI to match the OpenAI one.

https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/s/64wGaH0P9C

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

#270

Post by youarelabor »

eh_why_not wrote: post #262

.

there is no such thing as intelligence in humans

creating a robot that is as intelligent as a human is straightforward but then you have a computer whose fallibility is the same as a human, plus the fallibility of those who created the computer doubles the poportunity for error

these are all people who don't understand god at all, and it shows

anyone who worships a computer because other people say it's intelligent deserves what happens to them

butlerian jihad is coming not because AI is a threat, but because those who believe in AI are a threat to everyone around them.

Post reply on HN