41–50 of 734 posts
Can someone make an honest argument for how OpenAI staff are missionaries, after the coup? I'd be very happy to be convinced that supporting the coup was the right move for true-believer missionaries. (Edit: It's an honest and obvious question, and I think that the joke responses risk burying or discouraging honest answers.)
The game theoretic aspect of this is quite interesting. If Meta will make OpenAI's model improvements open source, then the value of every poached employee will be worth significantly less as time goes on. That means it's in the employees best interest to leave first, if their goal is to maximize their income.
ie - Zuck has no intention to keep opening up the models he creates. Thus, he knows he can spend the money to get the talent. Because he has every intention to make it back.
That didn't work for the American colonies, Portugal and Spain were very focused on being missionaries and were beaten by the Dutch and Brits that just wanted to make money.
I believe Portuguese got there looking for a shorter route to India (money) and eventually settled the land for gold, silver, brazilwood, diamonds and sugarcane (money).
Conquerors is a great read on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquerors:_How_Portugal_Forge...
And don't get me wrong, they were very successful at filling their pockets with gold, but could have been even more if they were mostly mercenaries like the brits and the dutch.
That didn't work for the American colonies, Portugal and Spain were very focused on being missionaries and were beaten by the Dutch and Brits that just wanted to make money.
The motive for settling the colonies in New England was emphatically not to make money.
This is a deliberate obfuscation pattern. If the model is ever consistently useful at a high-risk task (e.g., legal advice, medical interpretation, financial strategy), it triggers legal, regulatory, and reputational red flags. a. Utility → Responsibility
If a system is predictably effective, users will reasonably rely on it.
And reliance implies accountability. Courts, regulators, and the public treat consistent output as an implied service, not just a stochastic parrot.
This is where AI providers get scared: being too good makes you an unlicensed practitioner or liable agent.
b. Avoid “Known Use Cases”
Some companies will actively scrub capabilities once they’re discovered to work “too well.”
For instance:
A model that reliably interprets radiology scans might have that capability turned off.
A model that can write compelling legal motions will start refusing prompts that look too paralegal-ish or insert nonsense case law citation.
I think we see this a lot from ChatGPT. It's constantly getting worse in real world uses while exceeding at benchmarks. They're likely, and probably forced, to cheat on benchmarks by using "leaked" data.
AI as a religion should scare any investor. Where are the products that you can sell for moolah?
The value of these researchers to meta is surely more than a few billion. Love seeing free markets benefit the world
How do you figure? If you assume that Meta gets the state of the art model, revenue is non-existent, unless they start a premium tier or put ads. Even then, its not clear if they will exceed the money spent on inference and training compute.
If you've ever browsed teamblind.com (which I strongly recommend against as I hate that site), you'll see what the people who work at Meta are like.
Does he have the same conviction when people from other companies decide to join OpenAI?