451–460 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a very minor typo in the article: > “Investors are, like, I need to know you’re gonna stick with this when times get hard,” Should be: > “Investors are like, I need to know you’re gonna stick with this when times get hard,”
I'm not seeing a typo. Just a stylistic difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is brilliant work, guys. Did you get any pressure to soften or spike the story?
I won’t get into behind-the-scenes specifics here but I think you can imagine how pressurized this topic was and the amount of heat that tends to generate. I’m used to getting a lot of blowback and it’s never fun. I just hope the work is meticulous and fair enough, and that enough people see the benefits of that, that I get to continue to do it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, we do. Humans share the statistical association ability that LLMs possess, but also conscious meaning and understanding. This is a difference in kind and means that we can generalize beyond the statistical pattern associations that we've extracted from data, so we don't require trillions of examples to develop knowledge. Theoretically a human could sit alone in a dark room, knowing nothing of mathematics and com…
Our DNA does contain our pre-training, though. It's not true that we're an entirely blank slate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you. Yes, I saw that. The company's always been surrounded by endless talk about insane hype, speculative bubbles, and financial engineering. I wasn't asking so much about that. I was asking more about your informed view on how OpenAI's technology, products, and roadmap are perceived, particularly by customers and partners, in comparison to those of competitors. If you have an opinion about that, everyone here…
Ronan Farrow's expertise is investigations into elite amorality, not evaluating technical products. Why are you asking this question?
https://archive.ph/hOYMn
At one point you mentioned an interaction with OpenAI staff where you were looking to interview AI Safety researchers. You were rebuffed b/c "existential safety isn't a thing". Does this mean that you could find no evidence of a AI Safety team at OAI after Jan Leike left? If you look at job postings it does seem like they have significant safety staff...
Of course he cannot be trusted. Anyone whose motivation is based on greed is by nature untrustworthy.
Not just the greed. The whole AI is so dangerous that we must be the ones to build it to save humanity, and then gaslighting yourself and everyone around you into believing that your language model is AGI. This is some weird detached from reality cult behavior.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think they were useful at all. If anything they pulled down YCs up to that point stellar reputation.
“Today’s news comes at an interesting time. Last week, Business Insider’s Jonathan Marino reported that YC is close to raising several billion dollars for a new fund, with the goal of possibly expanding its scope to later stage funding. It said it’s still in preliminary discussions for this new strategy, but if true, Thiel could definitely play a big role there.” My recollection was Thiel was injecting cash, a money…
The whole AI safety thing has always seemed extreme to me and has turned out to be a storm in a teacup. All those prominent people who used to tell us how AI will end humanity seem to have stopped talking about it.
I get the sense that Altman is not particularly like-able person but Bill Gates and Steve Jobs both seem to have scored a 10/10 on their “is this guy a jerk” rating, it’s common for tech CEOs.
So, the article and headline are dramatic but not much really there.
I think all the AI safety obsessed people turn out to have been the ones off course.