471–480 of 644 posts
Update: Looks like Barret Zoph, GPT-4's post training (co-)lead is also leaving: https://x.com/barret_zoph/status/1839095143397515452
If OpenAI is the foremost in solving the AGI - possibly the biggest invention of mankind - it's a little weird that everyone's dropping out. Does it not look like that no one wants to work with Sam in the long run?
Open AI fired her. She didn't drop out.
https://nypost.com/2024/03/08/business/openai-chief-technolo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Open AI fired her. She didn't drop out.
Do you have any proof even circumstantial?
Sutskever [1], Karpathy [2], Schulman [3], and Murati today! Who's next? Altman ?! _________________ 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40361128 2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39365935 3. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41168904
https://nypost.com/2024/03/08/business/openai-chief-technolo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and transformer models can do more than text. There's almost certainly better options out there given it looks like we don't need so many examples to learn from, though I'm not at all clear if we need those better ways or if we can get by without due to the abundance of training data.
If you come up with a new system, you're going to want to integrate AI into the system, presuming AI gets a bit better. If AI can only learn after people have used the system for a year, then your system will just get ignored. After all, it lacks AI. And hence it will never get enough training data to get AI integration. Learning needs to get faster. Otherwise, we will be stuck with the tools that already exist. New…
If the new system can be interacted with in a non-destructive manner at low cost and with useful responses, then existing AI can self-generate the training data.
If it merely takes a year, businesses will rush to get that training data even if they need to pay humans for a bit: Cars are an example of "real data is expensive or destructive", it's clearly taking a lot more than a year to get there, and there's a lot of investment in just that.
Pay 10,000 people USD 100,000 each for a year, that billion dollar investment then gets reduced to 2.4 million/year in ChatGPT Plus subscription fees or whatever. Plenty of investors will take that deal… if you can actually be sure it will work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Artificial General Intelligence requires a bit more than parsing and predicting text I reckon.
at the very least you could say "parsing and predicting text, images, and audio". and you would be correct - physical embodiment and spatial reasoning are missing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you go to https://clinicaltrials.gov/ , you can see almost every clinical trial that's registered in the US. Some trials have their protocols published. Here's an example trial: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06613256 And here's the protocol: https://cdn.clinicaltrials.gov/large-docs/56/NCT06613256/Pro... It's actually relatively short at 33 pages. Some larger trials (especially oncology trials) can have prot…
What's your experience with clinical trials?
The last system, I led one team competing for the Transcelerate Shared Investigator Portal (we were one of the finalist vendors).
Little side project: https://zeeq.ai
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's in nobodies best interest to do this especially when there is so much money at play.
A bit ironic for a non-profit
The fact that it has a structure that subordinates it to the board of a non-profit would be only tangential to the interests involved even if that was meaningful and not just rhe lingering vestige of the (arguably, deceptive) founding that the combined organization was working on getting rid of.