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

341–350 of 496 posts

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#341

Post by famouswaffles »

JoelMcCracken wrote: post #234
airstrike wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Notwithstanding the fact that AGI is a significantly higher bar than "LLM", this argument is illogical. Nobody thought we were anywhere closer to me jumping off the Empire State Building and flying across the globe 5 years ago, but I'm sure I will. Wish me luck as I take that literal leap of faith tomorrow.

what's super weird to me is how people seem to look at LLM output and see: "oh look it can think! but then it fails sometimes! how strange, we need to fix the bug that makes the thinking no workie" instead of: "oh, this is really weird. Its like a crazy advanced pattern recognition and completion engine that works better than I ever imagined such a thing could. But, it also clearly isn't _thinking_, so it seems like…

By that logic, I can conclude humans don't think, because of all the numerous times out 'thinking fails'.

I don't know what else to tell you other than this infallible logic automaton you imagine must exist before it is 'real intelligence' does not exist and has never existed except in the realm of fiction.

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#342

Post by sorokod »

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 commercial models are not designed to win the imitation game (that is what Allan Turing named it). In fact the are very likely to loose every time.

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#343

Post by matt_kantor »

czl wrote: post #318
yndoendo wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ma…

I'm not the person you asked, but I think:

1. Minds are machines and can (in principle) have their operation duplicated

2. LLMs are not doing this

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#344

Post by deaux »

energy123 wrote: post #291
deaux wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

General data: hundreds of billions of tokens per week are running through Deepseek, Qwen, GLM models solely by those users going through OpenRouter. People aren't doing that for laughs, or "non-real-world use", that's all for work and/or prod. If you look at the market share graph, at the start of the year the big 3 OpenAI/Anthropic/Google had 72% market share on there. Now it's 45%. And this isn't just because of Gr…

Because it's significantly cheaper. It's on the frontier at the price it's being offered, but they're not competitive in the high intelligence & high cost quadrant.

Being the number one in price vs quality, or size vs quality, is incredibly impressive, as the quality is clearly one that's very useful in "real-world usage". If you don't find that impressive there's not much to say.

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#345

Post by xwowsersx »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #179
xwowsersx wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP said necessary, not sufficient

OP said "will". That doesn't sound like "necessary, not sufficient" to me.

You're missing context and/or didn't read OP's comment. He said "will" with regards to reaching AGI. He said "only AGI can find" with regards to profit. It was the latter that this thread was addressing.

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#347

Post by energy123 »

deaux wrote: post #344
energy123 wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's significantly cheaper. It's on the frontier at the price it's being offered, but they're not competitive in the high intelligence & high cost quadrant.

Being the number one in price vs quality, or size vs quality, is incredibly impressive, as the quality is clearly one that's very useful in "real-world usage". If you don't find that impressive there's not much to say.

If it was on the cost vs quality frontier I would find it impressive, but it's not a marker of innovation to be on the price vs quality frontier, it's a marker of business strategy

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#348

Post by hackinthebochs »

JoelMcCracken wrote: post #234
airstrike wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Notwithstanding the fact that AGI is a significantly higher bar than "LLM", this argument is illogical. Nobody thought we were anywhere closer to me jumping off the Empire State Building and flying across the globe 5 years ago, but I'm sure I will. Wish me luck as I take that literal leap of faith tomorrow.

what's super weird to me is how people seem to look at LLM output and see: "oh look it can think! but then it fails sometimes! how strange, we need to fix the bug that makes the thinking no workie" instead of: "oh, this is really weird. Its like a crazy advanced pattern recognition and completion engine that works better than I ever imagined such a thing could. But, it also clearly isn't _thinking_, so it seems like…

Why should LLM failures trump successes when determining if it thinks/understands? Yes, they have a lot of inhuman failure modes. But so what, they aren't human. Their training regimes are very dissimilar to ours and so we should expect alien failure modes owing to this. This doesn't strike me as good reason to think they don't understand anything in the face of examples that presumably demonstrate understanding.

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#349

Post by dr_dshiv »

r_lee wrote: post #290
dr_dshiv wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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 i…

Check out the article. He’s not crazy. It comes down to clear definitions. We can talk about AGI for ages, but without a clear meaning, it’s just opinion.

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#350

Post by singularity2001 »

torginus wrote: post #328
wrsh07 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Depends on how you define AGI - if you define it as an AI that can learn to perform generalist tasks - then yes, transformers like GPT 5 (or 3) are AGI as the same model can be trained to do every task and it will perform reasonably well. But I guess what most people would consider AGI would be something capable of on-line learning and self improvement. I don't get the 2035 prediction though (or any other prediction…

>> if you define it as an AI that can learn to perform generalist tasks - then yes, transformers like GPT 5 (or 3) are AGI

Thank you, this is the definition we need a proper term for, and this is what most experts mean when they say we have some kind of AGI.

Post reply on HN