Live data from Hacker News

Three senior researchers have resigned from OpenAI

news.ycombinator.com

571–580 of 711 posts

Re: Three senior researchers have resigned from OpenAI

#571
post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If all of that would be enough, there would be a ChatGPT from Google, a long time ago...

Google invented the core technology, and they had an internal version long before ChatGPT was released. I joined when it was already at the "accessible to all employees" stage and it absolutely blew my mind. They just hadn't -- and still haven't -- figured out how to commercialize it yet. I don't think they'll be the ones to crack that nut either. IMO they are too obsessed with "safety" to release something useful, a…

Yeah, the legal and financials parts of ChatGPT are very questionable. I don't think Google would launch a service that would open them up to so many lawsuits unless it was very profitable, and I doubt ChatGPT is very profitable currently.

Bard was likely not trained on copyrightable data, that makes it safe from lawsuits but also removes most of the usecases people want ChatGPT for.

And it isn't just about lawsuits, since Google need to keep advertisers happy or they would leave like they leave Elon Musk they can't afford to jeapordise that with questionable launches.

Re: Three senior researchers have resigned from OpenAI

#572

If the speculation that the board want to open up everything so that it is truly open/public domain "for the benefit of humanity" turns out to be accurate, I can't see Microsoft being terribly happy about this now that they own 49% of OpenAI and want not only to recoup their investments but make ongoing profit. An exodus of staff might provoke a very quick release of a lot of code, pipelines, and training data by the…

It’s the opposite. They are irrationally fearful of what they have built. Therefore, they will handicap any progress or competitive advantage that they have.

A lot of comments on this thread are sharing personal theories as if they were facts.

Sam also talked about the dangers of AI. It’s likely that he did so to encourage a regulatory moat around OpenAI.

Re: Three senior researchers have resigned from OpenAI

#573
post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Greg Brockman works 60 to 100 hours per week, and spends around 80% of the time coding. Former colleagues have described him as the hardest-working person at OpenAI." https://time.com/collection/time100-ai/6309033/greg-brockman...

What Brockman tweets is from technical standpoint the most mundane, boring, and obvious stuff I’ve read from a programmer. My reads of this guy have been he’s not working on any problems that are technically difficult (or interesting). It’s much easier to work long hours on easy problems. He also has a managerial vibe in all communications which supports my feeling. Most programming work in any project and company is…

It's definitely a Silicon Valley thing at least to overvalue individuals and downplay good teams. Keep in mind, there are a lot of young people in this site. It's pretty fun, you get boom-bust cycles like what happened with Musk and plenty of grifters trying to take advantage of this mindset.

Re: Three senior researchers have resigned from OpenAI

#574
post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I misspoke earlier. Although nobody has actual power on paper, public and investor pressure can be just as influential.

Could Microsoft not hire Sam (reporting directly to Satya) and those who departed and equip them with compute access and ancillary resources? It seems less of a lift than salvaging the OpenAI situation internally due to the emotions and politics involved, non competes not existing in California (broadly speaking), and the logistics of attempting to apply pressure to a 501c3 board with very little leverage. The value…

> It seems less of a lift

I’ve seen this expression a lot recently and it baffles me.

The word you are looking for is “effort,” or if you prefer adjectives, maybe something like “difficult.”

Re: Three senior researchers have resigned from OpenAI

#575
post #192

It seems like firing Sam and causing this massive brain drain might be antithetical to the whole AGI mission of the original non-profit. If OpenAI loses everyone to Sam and he starts some new AI company, it probably won't be capped-profit and just be a normal company. All of the organizational safeguards OpenAI had inked with Microsoft and protection against "selling AGI" once-developed are out-the-window if he just…

I think the surprising truth is that all of these people are essentially replaceable. They may be geniuses, but AGI is an idea whose time has come: geniuses are no longer required to get us there. The Singularity train has already left the station. Inevitability. Now humanity is just waiting for it to arrive at our stop

Science fiction theory: Ilya has built an AGI and asked it what the best strategic move would be to ensure the mission of OpenAI, and it told him to fire Sam.

Re: Three senior researchers have resigned from OpenAI

#576
post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair point. I don't want to split hairs on specifics, but I had in mind the "weak AGI" (consciousness- and sentience-free) vs "strong AGI". Since Shank 's comment didn't specify what they meant, I should have made a more charitable interpretation (i.e. assume it was "weak AGI").

OpenAI (re?)defines AGI as a general AI that is able to perform most tasks as good as or better than a human. It's possible that under this definition and by skewing certain metrics, they are quite close to "AGI" in the same way that Google has already achieved "quantum supremacy".

How has open ai enumerated a list of tasks humans can do? What a useless definition. By a reasonable interpretation of this definition we are already here. Given chat Gpts constraints (ingesting and outgoing only text), it already performs better than most humans...

Most humans cannot write as well and most lack the reasoning ability. Even the mistakes chargpt makes on mathematical reasoning is typical human behavior.

Re: Three senior researchers have resigned from OpenAI

#577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't misrepresent the problem.

what is the problem, in tangible terms?

Machines have so far replaced us in physical tasks, which has forced us to move largely to menial office jobs, typing on a computer, doing things machines are bad at. Over 80% of jobs in the US are office-confined (or from home, but that's not the point). We're actually a poor fit for those monotonic, sedentary jobs, our bodies and minds are not designed for them. And from that the subsequent devastating effects on our physical and mental health. But you gotta have a job, or you can't exist. The system throws out parts that are not useful. It's the nature of the system.

Well here comes AI to take those jobs. What happens, you think? Where do we go next? Do you imagine we'll all just sit idle and give out orders for the AI to fulfill? Recall: the system throws away parts that are not useful. And we're not better at orchestrating this system than we are at implementing it. Most people already struggle to handle the complexity of modern life. So they'll be thrown out.

Now think what happens with a society where most people are unemployed, unhappy and hungry, and businesses are mostly, not ENTIRELY mind you, but most self-sufficient machinery that does the thinking and does the footwork?

But even that doesn't describe the problem alone. It's more of an end game. Before this we'll see not-so-superior AI pollute our web, media, public space with quickly generated content, as actual artists and thinkers are displaced, unable to compete. Our culture will die first. And then, eventually, we'll start dying.

As I'm describing this, note I don't say this from place of fear. I don't fear this. I see it more as an obvious place for our civilization to go. We can't help it, because we don't decide where this civilization goes any more than your cells decide where you go, or any more than the atoms of your cells "decide" where the cell goes.

We're not in control. That's just evolution.

Say, when you're sick and you have cancer, those cells are part of you, but they harm you, so you cut them out, apply chemotherapy, and then if there's a prosthesis to substitute the organ you removed with a machine, you do it, and you don't think twice about it.

What makes you think our society as a whole is different? If humans are not good at what society needs, it cuts those people out, and replaces them with working machines. It's so plainly obvious. We pay lip service to human rights and the value of an individual, but clearly that's not what we end up doing. A politician is chasing money and power, and they don't mind starting wars to get them if they can. A business chases profit, so they don't mind automating away any employee they can. It's always been this way. So now that you can replace the human thinkers, businesses won't need human thinkers. And since there's nothing left humans are good at, society won't need humans.

Re: Three senior researchers have resigned from OpenAI

#578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google invented the core technology, and they had an internal version long before ChatGPT was released. I joined when it was already at the "accessible to all employees" stage and it absolutely blew my mind. They just hadn't -- and still haven't -- figured out how to commercialize it yet. I don't think they'll be the ones to crack that nut either. IMO they are too obsessed with "safety" to release something useful, a…

Yeah, the legal and financials parts of ChatGPT are very questionable. I don't think Google would launch a service that would open them up to so many lawsuits unless it was very profitable, and I doubt ChatGPT is very profitable currently. Bard was likely not trained on copyrightable data, that makes it safe from lawsuits but also removes most of the usecases people want ChatGPT for. And it isn't just about lawsuits,…

Why is it legally questionable?

Re: Three senior researchers have resigned from OpenAI

#579
post #192

It seems like firing Sam and causing this massive brain drain might be antithetical to the whole AGI mission of the original non-profit. If OpenAI loses everyone to Sam and he starts some new AI company, it probably won't be capped-profit and just be a normal company. All of the organizational safeguards OpenAI had inked with Microsoft and protection against "selling AGI" once-developed are out-the-window if he just…

Hi, can we talk about the elephant in the room? I see breathless talk about "AGI" here, as if it's just sitting in Altman's basement and waiting to be unleashed. We barely understand how consciousness works, we should stop talking about "AGI". It is just empty, ridiculous techno-babble. Sorry for the harsh language, there's no nice way to drive home this point.

An AGI system is not human and shouldn't be treated as such. Consciousness is not a trait of intelligence. Consciousness usually requires quaila which puts animals ahead of computers.

Re: Three senior researchers have resigned from OpenAI

#580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the surprising truth is that all of these people are essentially replaceable. They may be geniuses, but AGI is an idea whose time has come: geniuses are no longer required to get us there. The Singularity train has already left the station. Inevitability. Now humanity is just waiting for it to arrive at our stop

I disagree. I don’t think LLMs are a pathway to AGI. I think LLMs will lead to incredibly powerful game-changing tools and will drive changes that affect the course of humanity, but this technology won’t lead to AGI directly. I think AGI is going to arrive via a different technology, many years in the future still. LLMs will get to the point where they appear to be AGI, but only in the same way the latest 3D renderin…

> LLMs will get to the point where they appear to be AGI, but only in the same way the latest 3D rendering technology can create images that appear to be real.

Distinction without difference

Post reply on HN