581–590 of 595 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We'd have to believe that he means what he said about starting the company. Maybe he meant it, maybe it was just corporate philanthropy BS. Which do you think is really the case?
Do we even believe that he was the one who came up with the name?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you explain? I think I'm reading it wrong, but it seems as though you're saying the presence of something is what causes starvation of that thing.
no, he's saying other areas that could use smart people are being starved of a certain type of smart, analytical people, for example the types or quantities of people who might be attracted to the medical field. Lester Thurow, a pretty left liberal economist, pointed out that women's "liberation" and entrance into the general workforce had starved teaching/education of the pool of talented women that had previously k…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ... than they ever cared about democratization of the immense power of these models. I thought they're pretty explicit about the ethical argument for limiting full public release? They'd say that these models are too powerful to release on an unsuspecting world. Google results are already SEO spammed to death and GPT'd SEO spam would make it far worse. Or Nigerian prince scammers and catfishers could use ChatGPT to…
The Ethics argument is a weak one, and we have very recent proof to show it's a useless argument at best: we saw the how both Dall-E and Stable Diffusion affected the world. The first was kept behind close doors because "muh ethics" and the second one was released in the wild. The world hasn't gone down under, but the technology iteration rate in this area has improved manyfold since Stable Diffusion came out.
At some point the U.S. government should step up and provide some resources, and offer large datasets for open acess training and pretrained models. In the future, there will be many AI models for various purposes, closed source, guarded, with their moat being the costs to train a similar model on a dataset of similar breadth. This eliminates smaller orgs from ever being able to offer a competing model, and ruins inn…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well John Carmack is trying to make inroads towards AGI without going the huge compute route, so I don't think it's inherently obvious that it's the only game in town. https://dallasinnovates.com/exclusive-qa-john-carmacks-diffe...
Carmack is basically a complete nobody in AI. I think he'll be able to do some good stuff on the software side (i.e. the industry is full of AI cowboys who can't code) but on the fundamental side it's hard to see him doing much.
In terms of research background, you're right. But he's someone with a history of original thought and as he states, it's not clear that we're at the stage of machine learning where useful contributions from newcomers taking a different direction are vanishingly unlikely.
I'm sure OpenAI wouldn't have offered him a job if they thought he couldn't contribute anything of value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Carmack is basically a complete nobody in AI. I think he'll be able to do some good stuff on the software side (i.e. the industry is full of AI cowboys who can't code) but on the fundamental side it's hard to see him doing much.
He addresses this in the interview. In terms of research background, you're right. But he's someone with a history of original thought and as he states, it's not clear that we're at the stage of machine learning where useful contributions from newcomers taking a different direction are vanishingly unlikely. I'm sure OpenAI wouldn't have offered him a job if they thought he couldn't contribute anything of value.
This seems an important article, if for no other reason than it brings the betrayal of its foundational claim still brazenly present in OpenAI's name from the obscurity of HN comments going back years into the public light and the mainstream. They've achieved marvellous things, OpenAI, but the pivot and long-standing refusal to deal with it honestly leaves an unpleasant taste, and doesn't bode well for the future, es…
It is nice to see normies noticing and caring, but the article leaves out some details that obscure comments still stubbornly bring up: like Musk founded it as a 501(c)(3) and put Altman in charge, and only once he had to leave with conflicts of interest Altman founded "OpenAI LP," the for-profit workaround so they didn't have to obey those pesky charity rules. That's when they stopped releasing models and weights, a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've got the story wrong. He wasn't kicked out because of the stack debate, but because he sold PP to eBay (making enough money in the process to fund Tesla and SpaceX).
huh? it was Peter Thiel the acting CEO when the sale was done - right after removing Musk for said migration to MS stack.
It makes sense. OpenAI would be dead if they remained a non-profit. They couldn't possibly hope to raise enough to achieve the vision.
Microsoft wouldn't have been willing to bankroll all of their compute without them converting to a for-profit, too.
Personally, I'd rather have a ClosedOpenAI (lol) than NoOpenAI.
And their actions, like making the ChatGPT API insanely cheap, at least shows their willingness to make it as accessible as possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you raise the giant sums of money needed to operate for years before any profits happen?
Convince a few rich people to not expect infinite returns in order to bootstrap it.