511–518 of 518 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They don't need Microsoft anymore, they have a queue of potential funders.
You think those funders will stick with their insistence on the direction of not creating products and making money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you please try to recall and link to the interview? I'd love to see it.
I listened to that and I'm pretty sure it was this [0] interview with the WSJ, Altman, and Mira Murati. If I'm wrong about that, well, it's still of interest given Mira Murati just took over running OpenAI. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byYlC2cagLw
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We barely understand the human brain, but sure we’re super close to AGI because we made chat bots that don’t completely suck anymore. It’s such hubris. Are the tools cool? Undoubtedly. But come down to earth for a second. People have lost all objectivity.
Objectively speaking, we’re talking exponential growth in both compute and capabilities year over year. Do you have any data that shows that we’ll plateau any time soon? Because if this trend continues, we’ll have superhuman levels of compute within 5 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll bite. I even led the witness on this one by outright asking if it's aggressive. > "a deliberative review process by the board, which concluded that he was not consistently candid in his communications with the board, hindering its ability to exercise its responsibilities." > The provided text is not explicitly aggressive; however, it conveys a critical tone regarding the individual's communication, emphasizing h…
Context matters. It's hyper aggressive by the standards of similar communications (press releases announcing management shakeups) by similar entities (boards of directors). Obviously it's not aggressive by the standards of everyday political drama or Internet forum arguments.
It's fair to say that usually if the board isn't obfuscating or outright lying in their announcements, that itself is an indicator of acrimony.
But usually, the board can financially incentivize a CEO to "step down" or even help them find a soft landing at another company to make it look like a mutually agreed on transition. Since they know this oustered CEO isn't interested in making nice in public, they really had no choice but to try to get in front of the story.
Given the fallout which is still spreading, I think they would've rather cut him a fat check for an explicit or implicit NDA and thanked him for his amazing contributions while wishing him well on his future endeavors if that option had been on the table.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AGI is about definitions. By many definitions, it’s already here. Hence MSR’s “sparks of AGI” paper and Eric Schmidt’s article in Noema. But by the definition “as good or better than humans at all things”, it fails.
That "Sparks of AI" paper was total garbage, just complete nonsense and confirmation bias. Defining AGI is more than just semantics. The generally accepted definition is that it must be able to complete most cognitive tasks as well as an average human. Otherwise we could as well claim that ELIZA was AGI, which would obviously be ridiculous.
1. Are they useful?
2. Are they going to become more useful in the forseeable future?
On 1, I would say, maybe? Like, somewhere between Microsoft Word and Excel? On 2, I would say, sure - an 'AGI' would be tremendously useful. But it's also tremendously unlikely to grow somehow out of the current state of the art. People disagree on that point, but I don't think there are even compelling reasons to believe that LLMs can evolve beyond their current status as bullshit generators.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The salesmen always take the credit. If you see someone getting all the credit... 9 times out of 10 they are the salesman not the engineer or brains that actually built the thing. Add to that the hero worship for celebrity in our current culture and there you go.
pg is a world class lisp hacker, no idea about sama though. Respecting and admiring someone for their achievements is one thing but blindly following successful people sounds like the antithesis of what a "hacker" is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kara Swisher gets in big public fights with CEOs and wears dark sunglasses in order to be cool. In other words, she's definitely not immune to bias and might easily want to shape the story to her own ends or to favor her own friends. We're not really talking about facts here.. it's really just speculation and hearsay, so who can say if she's just talking?
She also admits her bias and is staking her reputation as a journalist on that tweet - versus us commenting behind a pseudonym. It’s the closest to a fact we will have at the moment.
And if that's the closest we'll get to a fact, then what if it's not? .. it's actually worse than no fact at all.