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

Evolving OpenAI's Structure

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 746 posts

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#481

Post by jimbokun »

mandmandam wrote: post #438
jimbokun wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They deeply believe in the Ayn Rand mindset that the system that brings them the most individual wealth is also the best system for humanity as a whole.

When people that wealthy are that delusional... With few checks or balances from politics, media, or even social media... I don't think humanity as a whole is in for a great time.

They are roughly as delusional as everyone else. There is an image human bias to convince yourself that what benefits you is also best for everyone else.

It’s just that their biases have much more capacity to cause damage as their wealth gives them so much power.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#482

Post by voidspark »

foobiekr wrote: post #420
voidspark wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their multimodal models are a rudimentary form of AGI. EDIT: There can be levels of AGI. Google DeepMind have proposed a framework that would classify ChatGPT as "Emerging AGI". https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02462

Goalpost moving.

Nothing to do with moving the goalposts.

This is current research. The classification of AGI systems is currently being debated by AI researchers.

It's a classification system for AGI, not a redefinition. It's a refinement.

Also there is no universally accepted definition of AGI in the first place.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#483

Post by TheGrognardling »

There are a lot of good points here, by multiple vantage points as far as views for the argument of how imminent, if it - metaphysically or logistically - viable at all even, AGI is.

I personally think the conversation, including obviously in the post itself, has swung too far in the direction of how AGI can or will potentially affect the ethical landscape regarding AI, however. I think we really ought to concern ourselves with addressing and mitigating effects that it already HAS brought - both good and bad - rather than engaging in any excessive speculation.

That's just me, though.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#484

Post by jimbokun »

asadotzler wrote: post #445
jimbokun wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn’t? That name recognition made Coca Cola into a very successful global corporation.

About 95% of people know the Coca Cola brand, about 70% of soda drinkers in the US drink one of its sodas, and about 40% of all people in the US drink it. Knowing and using are not the same thing.

Your numbers indicate to me their name recognition drives a big part of their value.

40% of the US is a huge customer base.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#485

Post by sebastiennight »

throwaway48476 wrote: post #449
phreeza wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a very obvious thing for them to say though regardless of what they truly believe, because (a) it legitimizes removing the cap , making fundraising easier and (b) averts antitrust suspicions.

(b) is true but no so much (a). If investors thought it would be winner take all and they thought ClosedAI would win they'd invest in ClosedAI only and starve competitors of funding.

Actually I'm thinking in a winner-takes-all universe, the right strategy would be to spread your bets on as many likely winners as possible.

That's literally the premise of venture capital. This is a scenario where we're assuming ALL our bets will go to zero, except one which will be worth trillions. In that case you should bet on everything.

It's only in the opposite scenario (where every bet pays off with varying ROI) that it makes sense to go all-in on whichever bet seems most promising.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#487

Post by voidspark »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #413
voidspark wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you are simply rejecting any attempts to refine the definition of AGI. I already linked to the Google DeepMind paper. The definition is being debated in the AI research community. I already explained that definition is too limited because it doesn't capture all of the intermediate stages. That definition may be the end goal, but obviously there will be stages in between. > No, you can't, unless you're pre-suppos…

> I already linked to the Google DeepMind paper. The definition is being debated in the AI research community Sure, Google wants to redefine AGI so it looks like things that aren’t AGI can be branded as such. That definition is, correctly in my opinion, being called out as bullshit. > obviously there will be stages in between We don’t know what the stages are. Folks in the 80s were similarly selling their expert syst…

> Sure, Google wants to redefine AGI

It is not a redefinition. It's a classification for AGI systems. It's a refinement.

Other researchers are also trying to classify AGI systems. It's not just Google. Also, there is no universally agreed definition of AGI.

> We don’t know what the stages are. Folks in the 80s were similarly selling their expert systems as a stage to AGI. “Emerging AGI” is a bullshit term.

Generalization is a formal concept in machine learning. There can be degrees of generalized learning performance. This is actually measurable. We can compare the performance of different systems.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#488

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

lanthissa wrote: post #65
atlasunshrugged wrote: post #13

I think this is one of the most interesting lines as it basically directly implies that leadership thinks this won't be a winner take all market: > Instead of our current complex capped-profit structure—which made sense when it looked like there might be one dominant AGI effort but doesn’t in a world of many great AGI companies—we are moving to a normal capital structure where everyone has stock. This is not a sale,…

AGI can't really be a winner take all market. The 'reward' for general intelligence is infinite as a monopoly and it accelerates productivity. Not only is there infinite incentive to compete, but theres decreasing costs to. The only world in which AGI is winner take all is a world in which it is extremely controlled to the point at which the public cant query it.

AGI might not be fungible. From the trends today it's more likely there will be multiple AGIs with different relative strengths and weakness, different levels of accessibility and compliance, different development rates, and different abilities to be creative and surprising.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#489

Post by aylmao »

miki123211 wrote: post #207
no_wizard wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook had immense network effects working for it back then. What network effect does OpenAI have? Far as I can tell, moving from OpenAI to Gemini or something else is easy. It’s not sticky at all. There’s no “my friends are primarily using OpenAI so I am too” or anything like that. So again, I ask, what makes it sticky?

OpenAI (or, more specifically, Chat GPT) is CocaCola, not Facebook. They have the brand recognition and consumer goodwill no other brand in AI has, incredibly so with school students, who will soon go into the professional world and bring that goodwill with them. I think better models are enough to dethrone OpenAI in API, B2C and internal enterprise use cases, but OpenAI has consumer mindshare, and they're going to b…

> Unless somebody else figures out something which is better by orders of magnitude and that Open AI can't copy quickly, it's going to stay that way.

This will happen, and it won't be another model which Open AI can't copy, it'll be products.

I don't doubt OpenA I can create the better models but they're no moat if they're not in better products. Right now the main product is chat, which is easy enough to build, but as integrations get deeper how can OpenAI actually ensure it keeps traffic?

Case in point, Siri. Apple allows you to use ChatGPT with Siri right now. If Apple chooses so, they could easily remove that setting. On most devices ChatGPT lives within the confines of an app or the browser. A phone with deep AI integration is arguably a fantastic product— much better than having to open an app and chat with a model. How quickly could Open AI build a phone that's as good as those of the big phone companies today?

To draw a parallel— Google Assistant has long been better than Siri, but to use Siri you don't have to install an app. I've used both Android and iOS, and every time I'm on iPhone I switch back to Siri because in spite of being a worse assistant, it's overall a better product. It integrates well with the rest of the phone, because Apple has chosen to not allow any other voice assistant integrate deeply with the rest of the phone.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#490

Post by mandmandam »

jimbokun wrote: post #481
mandmandam wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When people that wealthy are that delusional... With few checks or balances from politics, media, or even social media... I don't think humanity as a whole is in for a great time.

They are roughly as delusional as everyone else. There is an image human bias to convince yourself that what benefits you is also best for everyone else. It’s just that their biases have much more capacity to cause damage as their wealth gives them so much power.

Yes, people are generally delusional; importantly though, some people are much less so (and some more so). Being connected to reality, being grounded, are learnable traits (but not very valuable to CEOs and narcissists).

> They are roughly as delusional as everyone else.

I would bet serious money that people who believe in Ayn Rand are generally more delusional than others, and the same goes for the ultra-wealthy living in a bubble of sycophants.

And their wealth gives them much more capacity - and motive - to cause damage.

Post reply on HN