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

Y Combinator's Stake in OpenAI (0.6%?)

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 73 posts

Re: Y Combinator's Stake in OpenAI (0.6%?)

#51

Post by wiseowise »

rvz wrote: post #11

Greg Brockman (President of OpenAI) also said that OpenAI is around 80% close to achieving "AGI", but it was disclosed that his stake in OpenAI is worth around 30BN. So what does the true definition of "AGI" actually mean? It depends on who you ask. It appears to many to mean "A Great IPO" or "A Gigantic IPO" at this point rather than "Artificial General Intelligence" which has been clearly hijacked to mean something…

> So what does the true definition of "AGI" actually mean? It depends on who you ask.

When Greg Brockman makes a lot of money from the deal.

Re: Y Combinator's Stake in OpenAI (0.6%?)

#52

Post by greggsy »

globalnode wrote: post #22

i always thought there were two reasons for AI interest on HN. 1. since AI has captured the imagination of capitalists and they think this is the next industrial revolution, they gotta be in it to win it. combined with the fact that i believe most people here are wealthy or at least aspirationally so, that explained half of it. 2. the other half is that AI as a tech is interesting from a mathematical and compsci poin…

…or many people are using the products day to day in their work as IT professionals or developers?

I think it’s mostly the above, rather than a capitalist conspiracy, or in its relevance as a scientific curiosity.

Re: Y Combinator's Stake in OpenAI (0.6%?)

#53

Post by in-silico »

Galanwe wrote: post #40
rvz wrote: post #11

Greg Brockman (President of OpenAI) also said that OpenAI is around 80% close to achieving "AGI", but it was disclosed that his stake in OpenAI is worth around 30BN. So what does the true definition of "AGI" actually mean? It depends on who you ask. It appears to many to mean "A Great IPO" or "A Gigantic IPO" at this point rather than "Artificial General Intelligence" which has been clearly hijacked to mean something…

> So what does the true definition of "AGI" actually mean? No worries, there will be a startup creating "AGI Bench", >=80% means you're AGI, they will be valued $50B.

The ARC-AGI benchmark is basically this already

Re: Y Combinator's Stake in OpenAI (0.6%?)

#54

Post by pixel_popping »

geuis wrote: post #25

Could someone (non-AI) summarize this? I'm sorry but I just literally don't have time to even read long posts from very reputable sources. I know I need the info but time just isn't there in my life right now.

why non-AI? If AI is arguably great at something, it's this.

Re: Y Combinator's Stake in OpenAI (0.6%?)

#55

Post by globalnode »

globalnode wrote: post #22

i always thought there were two reasons for AI interest on HN. 1. since AI has captured the imagination of capitalists and they think this is the next industrial revolution, they gotta be in it to win it. combined with the fact that i believe most people here are wealthy or at least aspirationally so, that explained half of it. 2. the other half is that AI as a tech is interesting from a mathematical and compsci poin…

sorry everyone, sometimes i go down these rabbit holes

Re: Y Combinator's Stake in OpenAI (0.6%?)

#56

Post by jononor »

in-silico wrote: post #53
Galanwe wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So what does the true definition of "AGI" actually mean? No worries, there will be a startup creating "AGI Bench", >=80% means you're AGI, they will be valued $50B.

The ARC-AGI benchmark is basically this already

That is not at all the intention of the ARC team. By ARC teams definition, passing any single ARC-AGI benchmark does not mean that AGI has been achieved. Instead, AGI would be considered achieved when we are no longer able to come up with new benchmarks that the AI systems do not immediately do well on.

Re: Y Combinator's Stake in OpenAI (0.6%?)

#58

Post by bitexploder »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #30
rvz wrote: post #11

Greg Brockman (President of OpenAI) also said that OpenAI is around 80% close to achieving "AGI", but it was disclosed that his stake in OpenAI is worth around 30BN. So what does the true definition of "AGI" actually mean? It depends on who you ask. It appears to many to mean "A Great IPO" or "A Gigantic IPO" at this point rather than "Artificial General Intelligence" which has been clearly hijacked to mean something…

That's the trick right? What do they really mean by AGI. Depending on how narrow you go, it sounds like we've already achieved it. However, if they keep saying they'll achieve it and not defining it before making such statements that determine what it is, they can keep saying it endlessly to create hype. One key thing I've heard about AGI which I think would be the most determining factor for me is a model that learn…

I think they would not be LLMs then.

Re: Y Combinator's Stake in OpenAI (0.6%?)

#59

Post by JumpCrisscross »

oliculipolicula wrote: post #23
chis wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such suspicious phrasing lol. So you’re saying Paul Graham and his wife Jessica have 800 MILLION dollars worth of OpenAI stock, and that’s not so significant?

We're forced to decide whether 0.8B is enough to risk her credibility over, or, if it matters to us, gather more information first

Has The Information broken any critical news about OpenAI? I never connected the dots around why I started finding it increasingly in worth paying for over the last year or two, but editorial bias feels correct.

Re: Y Combinator's Stake in OpenAI (0.6%?)

#60

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ucyo wrote: post #57

Sam Altman was president of Y Combinator from 2014 to 2019. of course YC has a stake in OpenAI. My surprise is why it is that low…

> of course YC has a stake in OpenAI

Sam has worn multiple hats for ages. Not all of this holdings are cross invested. (And they don’t have to be as long as everything is disclosed.)

It’s absolutely material that Sam’s statements about having no equity are, granted unsurprisingly a lie. It’s a bit more surprising to me that Graham would publicly defend Altman without disclosing this bias. And it’s actually shocking to me that Livingston, a journalist, was in on the fix.

Post reply on HN