601–610 of 711 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
AGI does not require consciousness.
What is consciousness ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Coding for 10/12hs daily isn’t healthy, is not sustainable and is not the way to live. I love coding and I being in front of a computer all my life, since I was 8. All the meaningful life moments in retrospective weren’t at the screen. Life occurs outside the screen. I understand that sometimes is worth it, to create a great product, solve something important or just for fun. But beware
Meaning of life is highly subjective. Just because your personal beliefs don't value coding highly doesn't mean that is universal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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,…
It was 100% trained on copyrightable data. You can tell by using it and Google has a history of "ask for forgiveness not permission" when it comes to data mining.
For very profitable things. This isn't very profitable, which is why I added that part to my comment. Google has a very good understanding what they get sued for and how much those lawsuits costs, if it is profitable anyway they go ahead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why make this about nationality?
Is that something controversial? Anyway, I was providing context. The way I see it, since they speak the same language natively, they might have had a frank conversation about this at some point and decided to resign in concert.
So many people overstate state their ideas, which is basically deceit. People who represent guesses as fact are either lying or have a special kind of arrogant ignorance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
AGI does not require consciousness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
There is no need to understand how consciousness works to develop AGI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was 100% trained on copyrightable data. You can tell by using it and Google has a history of "ask for forgiveness not permission" when it comes to data mining.
> Google has a history of "ask for forgiveness not permission" when it comes to data mining. For very profitable things. This isn't very profitable, which is why I added that part to my comment. Google has a very good understanding what they get sued for and how much those lawsuits costs, if it is profitable anyway they go ahead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft owns it. I honestly can not imagine trying to build a business on an API owned by Microsoft of all companies.
People have been successfully building on MS APIs for four decades now. I've been for nearly three. What exactly are you saying?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is "coding" and there is "God's spark genius of algorithms" kind of work. I really don't buy that for a second. Most of OpenAI's value compared to any competitor comes from the money they spent hiring humans to trawl through training data.
The God's spark of genius are the transformers which came from Google and are now in the open.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would they if they are advancing the goals of the non-profit and Altman was endangering that goal?
Hahaha "advancing the goals of non profit" right after making billions. All of a sudden their amnesia stopped huh? Hypocrites and virtue signallers, the whole board.