Live data from Hacker News

Sam Altman’s leap of faith

techcrunch.com

61–70 of 166 posts

Re: Sam Altman’s leap of faith

#61

There is too much easy money sloshing around Silicon Valley. The normal mechanisms for allocating it to sane, productive use (market forces) don't work, because it's in too few hands. So instead we get our version of a planned economy run by people who scared themselves with scifi.

I respectfully disagree. I realize whom I’m disagreeing with, but you’re wrong, there might be an asset bubble in the Valley, but these long term bets aren’t the result of “easy money.” They’re the result of smart money chasing long-term results in a world where research is being increasingly privatized and de-corporatized.

Open AI is not that much different from the research driven labs of the past like the MIT AI Lab, Project MAC, The Mother of All Demos, and yes, XEROX PARC and Bell Labs. The difference is that instead of a combination of government and large corporate money funding open ended applied and fundamental research; we have private investors doing the same.

The Valley is now one giant lab for the giant corporate parents to gobble up so that they take fewer extreme risks on their own dime. What works will work and it will be absorbed by FAANG. What doesn’t is discarded. While there are a few runaway hits, most companies like Deep Mind are absorbed by the large corporations as needed. When they can’t absorb them readily, they invest in them, like Google Venture’s investment into Uber and other unicorns. The net result is a diffused and confused environment where the future has moved from shiny office parks to local juice bars and coffee shops.

FWIW, I am for sama’s bet. And it’s not an easy sell at all. I think, it might be the hardest of all sells and the oldest amongst them. A bet in the future being better than today. I, personally, would pony up capital (to a limit) for the same.

Re: Sam Altman’s leap of faith

#62

There is too much easy money sloshing around Silicon Valley. The normal mechanisms for allocating it to sane, productive use (market forces) don't work, because it's in too few hands. So instead we get our version of a planned economy run by people who scared themselves with scifi.

It's akin to asking for investment because you intend to build a god.

Re: Sam Altman’s leap of faith

#63
post #3

> Thursday night would be considered pure insanity coming from someone else. Time will tell. The genius of YC was to spot the hackers as the driving force of a new generation of tech companies, to be founder friendly, to use the classes to get rid of the problem that every angel investor has to contend with ('is this a good investment or not?') and to tell the story in a very compelling way and with their own money o…

This is unfathomably harder than anything YC has ever dealt with in the past. Judging by what happened with IBM's Watson and Theranos I really doubt Sam will be given a blank check for the black box that is likely to emerge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_Labs

Is a good case study for investments on reputation alone.

Re: Sam Altman’s leap of faith

#65
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You left off the assumptions that AGI will be a superintelligence and one capable of capturing all value. There's no evidence to believe either one. Instead, it will probably be pretty dumb like humans are without the decades of supervised training we get and our interactions with the world. Further, the second a smart one starts getting devastating results, there will be political push-back to do something about it.…

I am very enthusiastic about AGI but I think it's strange how most other enthusiasts seem to assume that AGI automatically becomes (extremely) super-intelligent. I can't rule out the possibility of that being engineered deliberately over a period of months or years, assuming it's possible, but it seems like it is in no way automatic. At the very least the system would need extensive training. No reason to believe tha…

I think the only certainty here is the need to spend a lot of money on compute - whether from third party cloud services or from fans manufacturing chips you designed.

The description of some company or system capturing all future value sounds more like a singleton than general intelligence. Instead of calling themselves OpenAI maybe they could change their name to something that reflects that direction.

Re: Sam Altman’s leap of faith

#66
This whole premise that one can generate profits out of AGI is ridiculous.

If AGI comes to fruition, it won’t be working to make profits for anyone.

The idea that we would end up with a Friendly AGI that would prostrate itself to the destructive Super Apex Predator of this planet is laughable.

That AGI would work diligently to pay investors off 100x is..well..a lame duck that won’t take off...it cant even barely limp, never mind fly.

Re: Sam Altman’s leap of faith

#67
I have been a big skeptic of self-driving cars and other AI promises for years, taking my downvotes as armchair futurists predicted a self-driving car would be picking me up any day now, well before it was popular to be a contrarian after Tesla and Uber killed their drivers. [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Also notice the original links have the breathless hype from journalists who know-nothing and eat up whatever technologists' PR firms tell them.

Huge VC money has been and will continue to be destroyed by "AI"-businesses. Most of them are a cover for hiring tons of cheap laborers, such as businesses in the Philippines that park thousands of people in warehouse offices to review images, despite "advances" in AI detection that continue to be unable to automatically block content.[7]

Artificial general intelligence, and self-driving cars as well, will continue to be a pipe dream. Automated statistical analysis, which is what neural-networks that crunch tons of data essentially are, are a very neat trick but cannot drive a car nor build you a website. They can be very powerful tools that assist people in their jobs, but they will not replace human ingenuity. At least not until a new breakthrough happens that actually learns, rather than sifts through data for patterns which has limited utility.

Our current type of "AI" is simply branding - it is nothing of the sort and it is not intelligence at all.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10153613#10153800

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11559393#11561600

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10132991#10133049

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12011979#12012336

[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12323039#12323473

[5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12596978#12598439

[6] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13961802#13962230

[7] https://www.wired.com/2014/10/content-moderation/

Re: Sam Altman’s leap of faith

#68

There is too much easy money sloshing around Silicon Valley. The normal mechanisms for allocating it to sane, productive use (market forces) don't work, because it's in too few hands. So instead we get our version of a planned economy run by people who scared themselves with scifi.

I respectfully disagree. I realize whom I’m disagreeing with, but you’re wrong, there might be an asset bubble in the Valley, but these long term bets aren’t the result of “easy money.” They’re the result of smart money chasing long-term results in a world where research is being increasingly privatized and de-corporatized. Open AI is not that much different from the research driven labs of the past like the MIT AI L…

In my mind, OpenAI is different from the other labs you mention because their goal is to harness the power of their own god. Bell Labs, for most of its history, was tasked with improving the Bell System, so anything that was remotely related to the system was fair game. Maybe these things seem "not much different" to you, but they seem dramatically different to me.

I'm not really that convinced anyone is substantially closer to artificial general intelligence that anyone was in the 50s or 60s, and I think it's fun to imagine what Bell Labs might have achieved if they decided to focus all of their efforts on creating artificial general intelligence. Not much, I would think.

> a bet in the future being better than today

No, it's a bet that openai will create general intelligence and make a profit off of it in some timeframe such that it doesn't make more sense to get your 100x returns through ordinary means. OpenAI can achieve this without the "future being better than today," and conversely the future can be better than today without OpenAI achieving this.

Re: Sam Altman’s leap of faith

#69

It's interesting that in order for his pitch to work (if you invest in OpenAI, you will get up to 100x returns), assuming they do build AGI, it still requires that their AGI acquires a very stable, virtually guaranteed advantage of large magnitude. This very strongly requires that they cannot share anything they discover whatsoever. Especially since they apparently plan on using it to make strategic investments to be…

If openai ends up becoming some sort of hedge fund I'd be very very disappointed...

Re: Sam Altman’s leap of faith

#70

It's interesting that in order for his pitch to work (if you invest in OpenAI, you will get up to 100x returns), assuming they do build AGI, it still requires that their AGI acquires a very stable, virtually guaranteed advantage of large magnitude. This very strongly requires that they cannot share anything they discover whatsoever. Especially since they apparently plan on using it to make strategic investments to be…

The implication is that Altman belongs to the 'hard takeoff' sect of AI religion that believes a feedback cycle of recursive self-improvement kicks in, so that the first AI to surpass human levels of intelligence is also the last.
Post reply on HN