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

311–320 of 496 posts

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#311

Post by chemotaxis »

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…

> If you described all the current capabilities of AI to 100 experts 10 years ago, they’d likely agree that the capabilities constitute AGI.

I think that we're moving the goalposts, but we're moving them for a good reason: we're getting better at understanding the strengths and the weaknesses of the technology, and they're nothing like what we'd have guessed a decade ago.

All of our AI fiction envisioned inventing intelligence from first principles and ending up with systems that are infallible, infinitely resourceful, and capable of self-improvement - but fundamentally inhuman in how they think. Not subject to the same emotions and drives, struggling to see things our way.

Instead, we ended up with tools that basically mimic human reasoning, biases, and feelings with near-perfect fidelity. And they have read and approximately memorized every piece of knowledge we've ever created, but have no clear "knowledge takeoff path" past that point. So we have basement-dwelling turbo-nerds instead of Terminators.

This makes AGI a somewhat meaningless term. AGI in the sense that it can best most humans on knowledge tests? We already have that. AGI in the sense that you can let it loose and have it come up with meaningful things to do in its "life"? That you can give it arms and legs and watch it thrive? That's probably not coming any time soon.

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#312

Post by lostmsu »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #304
r_lee wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

For a long time the turing test was the bar for AGI. Then it blew past that and now, what I think is honestly happening, is that we don't really have the grip on "what is intelligence" that we thought we had. Our sample size for intelligence is essentially 1, so it might take a while to get a grip again.

The current models don't really pass Turing test. They pass some weird variations on it.

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#313

Post by digital_sawzall »

0xWTF wrote: post #271
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?

My L7 and L8 colleagues at Google seem to be signaling next 2 years. Errors of -1 and +20 years. But the mood sorta seems like nobody wants to quit when they're building the test stand for the Trinity device.

Yeah that's the type of estimate people give so they can keep the paychecks coming in for as long as possible.

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#314

Post by lm28469 »

wrsh07 wrote: post #207
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?

Yes. Some ai skeptical people (eg Tyler Cowen, who does not think AI will have a significant economic impact) think gpt5 is AGI. It was news when dwarkesh interviewed Karpathy who said per his definition of AGI, he doesn't think it will occur until 2035. Thus, if karpathy is pessimistic, then many people working in AI today think we will have agi by 2032 (and likely sooner, eg end of 2028)

> Yes. Some ai skeptical people ... think gpt5 is AGI.

It's a reverse Turing test at this point: "If you get tricked by an LLM to the point of believing it is AGI you're a clown"

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#315

Post by torginus »

fadedsignal wrote: post #162
crazygringo wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people didn't think we were anywhere close to LLM's five years ago. The capabilities we have now were expected to be a decades away, depending on who you talked to. [EDIT: sorry, I should have said 10 years ago... recent years get too compressed in my head and stuff from 2020 still feels like it was 2 years ago!] So I think a lot of people now don't see what the path is to AGI, but also realize they hadn't seen…

I don't think AGI will happen with LLMs. For example, can an LLM drive a car?? I know it's a silly question but it's a fact.

It can?

If you use 'multimodal transformer' instead of LLM (which most SOTA models are), I don't think there's any reason why a transformer arch couldn't be trained to drive a car, in fact I'm sure that's what Tesla and co. are using in their cars right now.

I'm sure self-driving will become good enough to be commercially viable in the next couple years (with some limitations), that doesn't mean it's AGI.

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#316

Post by lm28469 »

k9294 wrote: post #232
danans wrote: post #97

> Once AGI is declared by OpenAI ... I think it's funny and telling that they've used the word "declare" where what they are really doing is "claim". These guys think they are prophets.

They have a definition actually) “When AI generates $100 billion in profits” it will be considered an AGI. This term was defined in their previous partnership, not sure if it's still holds after the restructuring. https://techcrunch.com/2024/12/26/microsoft-and-openai-have-...

Which means that given enough time an LLM powered vending machine would be classified as AGI... interesting

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#317

Post by lm28469 »

Amekedl wrote: post #155

Regarding LLMs we're in a race to the bottom. Chinese models perform similarly with much higher efficiency; refer to kimi-k2 and plenty of others. ClopenAI is extremely overvalued, and AGI is not around the corner because among 20T+ tokens trained on it still generates 0 novel output. Try asking for ASP.NET Core .MapOpenAPI() instead of the pre .net9 swashbuckle version. You get nothing. It's not in the training data…

> because among 20T+ tokens trained on it still generates 0 novel output. Try asking for ASP.NET Core .MapOpenAPI() instead of the pre .net9 swashbuckle version. You get nothing. It's not in the training data.

The best part is that the web is forever poisoned now, 80% of the content is generated by LLM and self poisoning

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#318

Post by czl »

yndoendo wrote: post #287
Vinnl wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

Conventional LLM chatbots behave the way you describe because their goal during training is to as much as possible impersonate an intelligent assistant.

Do you think this goal during training cannot be changed to impersonate someone normal such that you cannot detect you are chatting with an LLM?

Before flight was understood some thought "magic" was involved. Do you think minds operate using "magic"? Are minds not machines? Their operation can not be duplicated?

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#319

Post by GuinansEyebrows »

thebruce87m wrote: post #110
bwfan123 wrote: post #99

So, openai has contracts worth 250B with azure and 300B with oci in the next 5 years. Where is that money coming from ?

It’s like the Spider-Man meme with everyone pointing at each other.

GDP is up, baby!

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#320

Post by chadcmulligan »

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?

I think we've reached Star Trek level AI. In Star Trek (and the next generation) people would ask the computer questions and it would spout out the answers, which is really similar to what LLM's are doing now, though minus the occasional hallucination. In Star Trek though the computers never really ran anything (except for the one fateful episode - The Ultimate Computer in TOS), I always wondered why, it seems Roddenberry was way ahead of us again.
Post reply on HN