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

The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 496 posts

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#281

Post by nine_k »

no_wizard wrote: post #96
philipwhiuk wrote: post #79

> Once AGI is declared by OpenAI, that declaration will now be verified by an independent expert panel. > Microsoft’s IP rights for both models and products are extended through 2032 and now includes models post-AGI, with appropriate safety guardrails. Does anyone really think we are close to AGI? I mean honestly?

They’ll devalue the term into something that makes it so. The common conception of it however, no I don’t believe we are anywhere close to it. It’s no different than how they moved the goalpost on the definition of AI at the start of this boom cycle

Consider: "Artificial two-star General intelligence".

I mean, once they "reach AGI", they will need a scale to measure advances within it.

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#282

Post by sigmar »

healsdata wrote: post #15
cjbarber wrote: post #6

> Once AGI is declared by OpenAI, that declaration will now be verified by an independent expert panel. I wonder what criteria that panel will use to define/resolve this.

> The two companies reportedly signed an agreement [in 2023] stating OpenAI has only achieved AGI when it develops AI systems that can generate at least $100 billion in profits. https://techcrunch.com/2024/12/26/microsoft-and-openai-have-...

that's very different from OpenAI's previous definition (which was "autonomous systems that surpass humans in most economically valuable tasks") for at least one big reason: This new definition likely only triggers if OpenAI's AI is substantially different or better than other companies' AI. Because in a world where 2+ companies have similar AGI, both would have huge income but the competition would mean their profit margins might not be as large. The only reason their profit would soar to 100B+ would be because of no competition, right?

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#283

Post by Jcampuzano2 »

SirMaster wrote: post #277
chrsw wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think their definition of AGI is just about how many human jobs can be replaced with their compute. No scientific or algorithmic breakthroughs needed, just spending and scaling dumb LLMs on massive compute.

Shouldn't it mean all jobs? If there are jobs it can't replace then that doesn't sound very generally intelligent. If it's got general intelligence it should be able to learn to do any job, no?

I think that somewhat depends on your definition.

For example an AGI AI could give you a detailed plan that tells you exactly how to do any and every task. But it might not be able to actually do the task itself, for example manual labor jobs for which an AI simply cannot do unless it also "builds" itself a form-factor to be able to do the job.

The AGI could also just determine that it's cheaper to hire a human than to build a robot at any given point for a job that it can't yet do physically and it would be the AGI

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#284

Post by yousif_123123 »

saaaaaam wrote: post #228
yousif_123123 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the stable coin company Tether is valued at 500 billion also.

Is the company valued at $500 billion or is the sum of the digital assets they’ve collateralised worth $500 billion? Because if you buy the tokens you presumably do not own the company. And if you buy the company you hopefully don’t own the tokens - nor the assets that back the tokens.

I think I read that its valued at 500 billion based on their latest fund raise. I don't know the total holdings they have.

I have no interest in crypto, just wanted to mention this which was surprising to me when I heard it.

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#285

Post by burnte »

IanCal wrote: post #261
gokuldas011011 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely. When I started doing Machine Learning in 2018, AI wasn't a next word predictor.

When I was doing it in 2005 it definitely included that, and other far more basic things.

That makes sense, though, that in 13 years we went from basic text prediction to something more involved.

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#287

Post by yndoendo »

Vinnl wrote: post #248
nl wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they moved the goalpost on the definition of AI at the start of this boom cycle Who is this "they" you speak of? It's true the definition has changed, but not in the direction you seem to think. Before this boom cycle the standard for "AI" was the Turing test. There is no doubt we have comprehensively passed that now.

I don't think the Turing Test has been passed. The test was setup such that the interrogator knew that one of the two participants was a bot, and was trying to find out which. As far as I know, it's still relatively easy to find out you're talking to an LLM if you're actively looking for it.

I find there are to main ways to do this.

1) Look for spelling, grammar, and incorrect word usage; such as where vs were, typing out where our should be used.

2) Ask asinine questions that have no answers; _Why does the sun ravel around my finger in low quality gravity while dancing in the rain?_

ML likes to always come up with an answers no matter what. Human will shorten the conversation. It also is programmed to respond with _I understand_, _I hear what you are saying_, and make heavy use of your name if it has access to it. This fake interpersonal communication is key.

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#288

Post by testfrequency »

notatoad wrote: post #254
butler533 wrote: post #247

Why do none of OpenAI announcements have an author attributed to them? Are people that ashamed of working there, they don't even want to attach their name to the work? I guess I would be, too.

because they're corporate PR statements drafted by a team, and corporate press releases don't normally have an author byline

Eh, not really. There’s usually a “voice” behind it.

In general I feel like OAI is clown town to work at these days, so they probably don’t want anyone except leadership to take the heat for ~anything

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#289

Post by sgustard »

htrp wrote: post #127
no_wizard wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’ll devalue the term into something that makes it so. The common conception of it however, no I don’t believe we are anywhere close to it. It’s no different than how they moved the goalpost on the definition of AI at the start of this boom cycle

FSD would like a word

SAE automation levels are the industry standard, not FSD (which is a brand name), and FSD is clearly Level 2 (driver is always responsible and must be engaged, at least in consumer teslas, I don't know about robotaxis). The question is if "AGI" is as well defined as "Level 5" as an independent standard.

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#290

Post by r_lee »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #275
no_wizard wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’ll devalue the term into something that makes it so. The common conception of it however, no I don’t believe we are anywhere close to it. It’s no different than how they moved the goalpost on the definition of AI at the start of this boom cycle

“Moving the goalposts” in AI usually means the opposite of devaluing the term. Peter Norvig (former research director at Google and author of the most popular textbook on AI) offers a mainstream perspective that AGI is already here: https://www.noemamag.com/artificial-general-intelligence-is-... If you described all the current capabilities of AI to 100 experts 10 years ago, they’d likely agree that the capabilities…

I don't see why anyone would consider the state of AI today to be AGI? it's basically a glorified generator stuck to a query engine

today's models are not able to think independently, nor are they conscious or able to mutate themselves to gain new information on the fly or make memories other than half baked solutions with putting stuff in the context window which just makes it use that to generate stuff related to it, imitating a story basically.

they're powerful when paired with a human operator, I.e. they "do" as told, but that is not "AGI" in my book

Post reply on HN