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

591–600 of 746 posts

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#591

Post by immibis »

BeetleB wrote: post #101
esafak wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of a future is that? If China marches towards a dystopia, why should Europe dutifully follow? We can selectively ban uses without banning the technology wholesale; e.g., nuclear power generation is permitted, while nuclear weapons are strictly controlled.

> If China marches towards a dystopia, why should Europe dutifully follow? I think the more relevant question is: Do you want to live in a Chinese dystopia, or a European one?

Do Zambians currently live in an American dystopia? I think they just do their own thing and don't care much what America thinks as long as they don't get invaded.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#592

Post by tempfile »

thurn wrote: post #560
CorpOverreach wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd really love to talk to someone that both really believes this to be true, and has a hands-on experience with building and using generative AI. The intersection of the two seems to be quite hard to find. At the state that we're in the AIs we're building are just really useful input/output devices that respond to a stimuli (e.g., a "prompt"). No stimuli, no output. This isn't a nuclear weapon. We're not going to ac…

Which of these statements do you disagree with? - Superintelligence poses an existential threat to humanity - Predicting the future is famously difficult - Given that uncertainty, we can't rule out the chance of our current AI approach leading to superintelligence - Even a 1-in-1000 existential threat would be extremely serious. If an asteroid had a 1-in-1000 chance of hitting Earth and obliterating humanity we shoul…

> There are almost no statements about the future which I'd assign this level of confidence to.

You have cooked up a straw man that will believe anything as long as it contains a doomsday prediction. You are more than 99.9% confident about doomsday predictions, even if you claim you aren't.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#593

Post by kgwgk »

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #520
esafak wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of people in academia and industry are calling for more oversight. It's the US government that's behind. Europe's AI Act bans applications with unacceptable risk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_Intelligence_Act

The EU can say all it wants about banning AI applications with unacceptable risk. But ASML is still selling machines to TSMC, which makes the chips which the AI companies are using. The EU is very much profiting off of the AI boom. ASML makes significantly more money than OpenAI, even.

If we think of “making money” as having more revenue than expenses a lemonade stand makes significantly more money than OpenAI.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#594

Post by TobTobXX »

voidspark wrote: post #553
CorpOverreach wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd really love to talk to someone that both really believes this to be true, and has a hands-on experience with building and using generative AI. The intersection of the two seems to be quite hard to find. At the state that we're in the AIs we're building are just really useful input/output devices that respond to a stimuli (e.g., a "prompt"). No stimuli, no output. This isn't a nuclear weapon. We're not going to ac…

> Progress of technology should not be artitrarily held back to protect automateable jobs though. We need to adapt. So you don't mind if your economic value drops to zero, with all human labour replaced by machines? Dependent on UBI, existing in a basic pod, eating rations of slop.

Yes! Sounds like a dream. My value isn't determined by some economic system, but rather by myself. There is so much to do when you don't have to work. Of course, this assumes we actually get to UBI first, and it doesn't create widespread poverty. But even if humanity will have to go through widespread poverty, we'd porbably come out with UBI on the other side (minus a few hundred millions starved).

There's so much to do, explore and learn. The prospect of AI stealing my job is only scary because my income depends on this job.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#595

Post by otabdeveloper4 »

esafak wrote: post #61
otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, because it's obviously bullshit and everyone knows it. Just play the game and get rich like everyone else.

Are you sure about that? AI-powered robotic soldiers are around the corner. What could go wrong...

> AI agent robot soliders that are as inept as ChatGPT

Sounds like payola for the enterprising and experienced mercenary.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#596

Post by otabdeveloper4 »

A_Duck wrote: post #374

This is the moment where we fumble the opportunity to avoid a repeat of Web 1.0's ad-driven race to the bottom Look forward to re-living that shift from life-changing community resource to scammy and user-hostile

In the future AI will be commoditized. You'll be able to buy an inference server for your home in the form factor like a wi-fi router now. They will be cheap and there will be a huge selection of different models, both open-source and proprietary. You'll be able to download a model with a click of a button. (Or just torrent them.)

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#597

Post by robinei »

pdxandi wrote: post #372
TeMPOraL wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AGI could be a winner-take-all market... for the AGI, specifically for the first one that's General and Intelligent enough to ensure its own survival and prevent competing AGI efforts from succeeding...

How would an AGI prevent others from competing? Sincere question. That seems like something that ASI would be capable of. If another company released an AGI, how would the original stifle it? I get that the original can self-improve to try to stay ahead, but that doesn't necessarily mean it self-improves the best or most efficiently, right?

If it was first, it could have self-improved more, to the point that it has the capacity to prevent competition, while the competition does not have the capacity to defend itself against superior AGI. This all is so hypothetical and frankly far from what we're seeing in the market now. Funny how we're all discussing dystopian scifi scenarios now.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#598

Post by yread »

A_Duck wrote: post #374

This is the moment where we fumble the opportunity to avoid a repeat of Web 1.0's ad-driven race to the bottom Look forward to re-living that shift from life-changing community resource to scammy and user-hostile

At least we can self-host this time around

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#599

Post by energy123 »

A_Duck wrote: post #374

This is the moment where we fumble the opportunity to avoid a repeat of Web 1.0's ad-driven race to the bottom Look forward to re-living that shift from life-changing community resource to scammy and user-hostile

Now the hard part. Design a policy stop this from happening while balancing the need to maintain competition, innovation, etc.

That step, along with getting politicians to pass it, is the only thing that will stop that outcome.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#600

Post by OtherShrezzing »

thurn wrote: post #560
CorpOverreach wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd really love to talk to someone that both really believes this to be true, and has a hands-on experience with building and using generative AI. The intersection of the two seems to be quite hard to find. At the state that we're in the AIs we're building are just really useful input/output devices that respond to a stimuli (e.g., a "prompt"). No stimuli, no output. This isn't a nuclear weapon. We're not going to ac…

Which of these statements do you disagree with? - Superintelligence poses an existential threat to humanity - Predicting the future is famously difficult - Given that uncertainty, we can't rule out the chance of our current AI approach leading to superintelligence - Even a 1-in-1000 existential threat would be extremely serious. If an asteroid had a 1-in-1000 chance of hitting Earth and obliterating humanity we shoul…

> Superintelligence poses an existential threat to humanity

I disagree at least on this one. I don't see any scenario where superintelligence comes into existence, but is for some reason limited to a mediocrity that puts it in contention with humans. That equilibrium is very narrow, and there's no good reason to believe machine-intelligence would settle there. It's a vanishingly low chance event. It considerably changes the later 1-in-n part of your comment.

Post reply on HN