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

Reflections on OpenAI

calv.info

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 446 posts

Re: Reflections on OpenAI

#431

Post by Timwi »

Mordisquitos wrote: post #326
Timwi wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also believe that AGI is not a thing, but for different reasons. I notice that almost everybody seems to implicitly assume, without justification, that humans are a GI (general intelligence). I think it's easy to see that if we are not a GI, then we can't see what we're missing, so it will feel like we might be GI when we're really not. People also don't seem interested in justifying why humans would be GI but othe…

> I notice that almost everybody seems to implicitly assume, without justification, that humans are a GI (general intelligence). I think it's easy to see that if we are not a GI, then we can't see what we're missing, so it will feel like we might be GI when we're really not. That's actually a great point which I'd never heard before. I agree that it's very likely that us humans do not really have GI, but rather only…

Yes, I do think that people usually mean AHI even they say AGI, although they don't realize it because when asked to define AGI they talk about generality and not about mimicking humans. (Meanwhile, when they talk about sentience and consciousness, they will usually only afford that to an artificial entity if it is exactly like a human, and often not even then.)

> Or are you making a harder argument, that human intelligence may not actually have the ability to create AHI?

I wasn't, but I've pondered it since you brought it up. No, I don't think it's impossible to create a greater intelligence than oneself — in fact, evolution has already done it by creating animals, including but not limited to humans. I used to think it was impossible when I pondered science fictional characters like Data from TNG, but modern LLMs show that we can create it without having to understand how it works. Data is depicted as having been engineered, but machine learning is closer to evolution than it is to engineering.

Re: Reflections on OpenAI

#432

Post by tim333 »

lz400 wrote: post #406
tim333 wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know you're not being serious but building AGI as in something that thinks like a human, as proven possible by millions of humans wandering all over the place is very different from "building god".

Not sure about that one. I do agree with the AI bros that, _if_ we build AGI, ASI looks inevitable shortly after, at least a "soft ASI". Because something with the agency of a human but all the knowledge of the world at its fingertips, the ability to replicate itself, think at order of magnitudes faster and paralelly on many things at the same time and modify itself... really looks like it won't stay comparable to a…

Though even if smarter than us we may get Sheldon off Big Bang Theory more than god.

Re: Reflections on OpenAI

#433

Post by selfhoster11 »

ivape wrote: post #207
jjani wrote: post #50

> The thing that I appreciate most is that the company is that it "walks the walk" in terms of distributing the benefits of AI. Cutting edge models aren't reserved for some enterprise-grade tier with an annual agreement. Anybody in the world can jump onto ChatGPT and get an answer, even if they aren't logged in. There's an API you can sign up and use–and most of the models (even if SOTA or proprietary) tend to quickl…

OpenAI hides their model's CoT (inference-time compute, thinking) Probably because Deepseek trained a student model off their frontier model.

So what? That's not a reason to intentionally turn black-box software into something even more black-box.

Re: Reflections on OpenAI

#434

Post by tomrod »

ujkiolp wrote: post #364
tomrod wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed!

post substantially

Substantiality is not limited by length. Depth and emphasis can weigh as substance, as is the case here. Though , ironically, ephemeral judgements regarding a post's substantially are themselves lacking in substance. Perhaps by discussing why a post lacks substance, a misplaced reprimand itself can gain substance. As for the originally critiqued post, adding additional emphasis through the unmitigatate plurality of exclamation points would paradoxically negate the potential for substantiality.

Yet such meta-analysis avoids discussion of the issue at hand, in this case where the culture and engineering of an up and coming company are put on display in a positive light.

Re: Reflections on OpenAI

#435

Post by ujkiolp »

tomrod wrote: post #434
ujkiolp wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

post substantially

Substantiality is not limited by length. Depth and emphasis can weigh as substance, as is the case here. Though , ironically, ephemeral judgements regarding a post's substantially are themselves lacking in substance. Perhaps by discussing why a post lacks substance, a misplaced reprimand itself can gain substance. As for the originally critiqued post, adding additional emphasis through the unmitigatate plurality of e…

a lot better

Re: Reflections on OpenAI

#436

Post by jordanmorgan10 »

chribcirio wrote: post #165
jordanmorgan10 wrote: post #155

I’m at a point my life and career where I’d never entertain working those hours. Missed basketball games, seeing kids come home from school, etc. I do think when I first started out, and had no kiddos, maybe some crazy sprints like that would’ve been exhilarating. No chance now though

> I’m at a point my life and career where I’d never entertain working those hours. That’s ok. Just don’t complain about the cost of daycare, private school tuition, or your parents senior home/medical bills.

...I....I didn't?

Re: Reflections on OpenAI

#437

Post by tomrod »

ujkiolp wrote: post #435
tomrod wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Substantiality is not limited by length. Depth and emphasis can weigh as substance, as is the case here. Though , ironically, ephemeral judgements regarding a post's substantially are themselves lacking in substance. Perhaps by discussing why a post lacks substance, a misplaced reprimand itself can gain substance. As for the originally critiqued post, adding additional emphasis through the unmitigatate plurality of e…

a lot better

The first comment had significantly more substance than my lengthy navel gazing diatribe.

Re: Reflections on OpenAI

#438

Post by theGnuMe »

>An unusual part of OpenAI is that everything, and I mean everything, runs on Slack. There is no email. I maybe received ~10 emails in my entire time there. If you aren't organized, you will find this incredibly distracting. If you curate your channels and notifications, you can make it pretty workable.

This is super interesting. I work in a group where everything is on slack and some pieces are/were super hard. So much so that I want an AI assistant that can manage my slack feed etc... I feel like an AI bot/slack integration is a thing that needs to be done well.

Re: Reflections on OpenAI

#440

Post by savanaly »

ievans wrote: post #357
maest wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similar to Pascal's wager, which pretty much amounts to "yeah, God is probably not real, _but what if it is_? The utility of getting into heaven is infinite (and hell is infinitely negative), so any non-zero probability that God is real should make you be religious, just in case." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager#Analysis_with...

This is explicitly not the conclusion Pascal drew with the wager, as described in the next section of the Wikipedia article: "Pascal's intent was not to provide an argument to convince atheists to believe, but (a) to show the fallacy of attempting to use logical reasoning to prove or disprove God..."

Did he say Pascal drew that conclusion and remove it with an edit or something? As it's written now it seems like you're correcting him for something he didn't post.
Post reply on HN