461–470 of 701 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>rightfully so How the hell can people be so confident about this? You describe two smart people reasonably disagreeing about a complicated topic
The LLMs of today are just multidimensional mirrors that contain humanity's knowledge. They don't advance that knowledge, they just regurgitate it, remix it, and expose patterns. We train them. They are very convincing, and show that the Turing test may be flawed. Given that AGI means reaching "any intellectual task that human beings can perform", we need a system that can go beyond lexical reasoning and actually con…
Can a super smart business-y person educate this engineer on how this even happens. So, if there's 6 board members and they're looking to "take down" 2... that means those 2 can't really participate, right? Or at the very least, they have to "recuse" themselves on votes regarding them? Do the 4 members have to organize and communicate "in secret"? Is there any reason 3 members can't hold a vote to oust 1, making it a…
This feels like real like succession panning out. Every board member is trying to figure out how to optimize their position.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Prediction: there isn't a difference. The apparent difference is a manifestation of human brain delusion about how human brains work. The Turing test is a beautiful proof of this phenomenon: so and so thing is impossibility hard only achievable via magic capabilities of human brains...oops no actually it's easily achievable now so we better re-define our test. This cycle Will continue until the singularly. Disclosure…
Clearly there's a difference, because the architectures we have don't know how to persist information or further train. Without persistence outside of the context window, they can't even maintain a dynamic, stable higher level goal. Whether you can bolt something small to these architectures for persistence and do some small things and get AGI is an open question, but what we have is clearly insufficient by design. I…
I mean, can't you say the same for people? We are easily confused and manipulated, for the most part.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure; but its still weird that Microsoft agreed to the deal with the board in the state that it was; not just no board seat, but three absolute outsiders, two of them extremely unqualified. We may look back on their decision to buy 49% of OpenAI as a big misstep.
Microsoft got access to their IP and capitalized on it. Likely it's already brought them more than $10B they paid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Clearly there's a difference, because the architectures we have don't know how to persist information or further train. Without persistence outside of the context window, they can't even maintain a dynamic, stable higher level goal. Whether you can bolt something small to these architectures for persistence and do some small things and get AGI is an open question, but what we have is clearly insufficient by design. I…
> Without persistence outside of the context window, they can't even maintain a dynamic, stable higher level goal. I mean, can't you say the same for people? We are easily confused and manipulated, for the most part.
I can reason about something and then combine it with something I reasoned about at a different time.
I can learn new tasks.
I can pick a goal of my own choosing and then still be working towards it intermittently weeks later.
The examples we have now of GPT LLM cannot do these things. Doing those things may be a small change, or may not be tractable for these architectures to do at all... but it's probably in-between: hard but can be "tacked on."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please don’t patronize me. It indeed looks like the press release from OpenAI is under scrutiny. What you fail to understand is human nature and the way people really do things ^TM https://twitter.com/karaswisher/status/1725685211436814795
I'm not patronizing you, I'm just responding on the same level as the post I replied to. There's an endless supply of examples of corporate/legal decisions and communication being made on very different criteria from interpersonal interactions. Of course the press release is under scrutiny, we are all wondering What Really Happened. But careless statements create significant legal (and thus financial) risk for a big…
>I'm not patronizing you
(A)ssuming (G)ood (F)aith, referring to someone online by their name, even in an edge case where their username is their name, is considered patronizing as it is difficult to convey a tone via text medium that isn't perceived as a mockery/veiled threat.
This may be a US-internet thing; analogous to getting within striking distance with a raised voice can be a capital offense in the US, juxtaposed to being completely normal in some parts of the Middle East.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Additionally, OpenAI can just put resources towards both approaches in order to settle this dispute. The whole point of research is that you don't know the conclusions ahead of time.
Seemingly, OpenAIs priorities shifted after the public ChatGPT release, and seems to be more and more geared towards selling to consumers, rather than a research lab that it seemed they initially were aiming for. I'm sure this was part of the disagreement as Sam is "capitalism incarnated" while Ilya gives of much different feelings.