Live data from Hacker News

Evolving OpenAI's Structure

openai.com

601–610 of 746 posts

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> There's so much to do, explore and learn.

Hobbies, hanging out with friends, reading, etc. That's basically it.

Probably no international travel.

It will be like a simple retirement on a low income, because in a socialist system the resources must be rationed.

This will drive a lot of young ambitious people to insanity. Nothing meaningful for them to achieve. No purpose. Drug use, debauchery, depression, violence, degeneracy, gangs.

It will be a true idiocracy. No Darwinian selection pressures, unless the system enforces eugenics and population control.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#603

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?

AGI used to be synonymous with ASI; it's still unclear to me it's even possible to build a sufficiently general AI - that is, as general as humans - without it being an ASI just by virtue of being in silico, thus not being constrained in scale or efficiency like our brains are.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#604

I think this is one of the most interesting lines as it basically directly implies that leadership thinks this won't be a winner take all market: > Instead of our current complex capped-profit structure—which made sense when it looked like there might be one dominant AGI effort but doesn’t in a world of many great AGI companies—we are moving to a normal capital structure where everyone has stock. This is not a sale,…

The value investor Mohnish Pabrai once talked about his observation that most companies with a moat pretend they don’t have one and companies without pretend they do.

I don't know how I feel about a tech bro being credit for an idea like this.

This is originally from The Art of War.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#605
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.)

That can be done with today's desktops already, if you beef up the specs slightly.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#606
post #560

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…

You could use the exact same argument to argue the opposite. Simply change the first premise to "Super intelligence is the only thing that can save humanity from certain extinction". Using the exact same logic, you'll reach the conclusion that not building superintelligence is a risk no sane person can afford to take.

So, since we've used the exact same reasoning to prove two opposite conclusions, it logically follows that this reasoning is faulty.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#607
post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like you believe AGI won't come for a long time, because you don't want that to happen. The turing test was succesfull. Pre chatGPT, I would not have believed, that will happen so soon. LLMs ain't AGI, sure. But they might be an essential part and the missing parts maybe already found, just not put together. And work there will be always plenty. Distributing ressources might require new ways, though.

While I also hold a peer comment's view that the Turing Test is meaningless, I would further add that even that has not been meaningfully beaten. In particular we redefined the test to make it passable. In Turing's original concept the competent investigator and participants were all actively expected to collude against the machine. The entire point is that even with collusion, the machine would be able to pass. Inst…

I mean, I am pretty sure that I won't be fooled by a bot, if I get the time to ask the right questions.

And I did not looked into it (I also don'think the test has too much relevance), but fooling the average person sounds plausible by now.

Now sounding plausible is what LLMs are optimized for and not being plausible, still, I would not have thought we get so far so quick 10 years ago. So I am very hesistant about the future.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#609
post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You could use the exact same argument to argue the opposite. Simply change the first premise to "Super intelligence is the only thing that can save humanity from certain extinction". Using the exact same logic, you'll reach the conclusion that not building superintelligence is a risk no sane person can afford to take. So, since we've used the exact same reasoning to prove two opposite conclusions, it logically follow…

The best we can hope for is that Artificial Super Intelligence treats us kindly as pets, or as wildlife to be preserved, or at least not interfered with.

ASI to humans, is like humans to rats or ants.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#610

I think this is one of the most interesting lines as it basically directly implies that leadership thinks this won't be a winner take all market: > Instead of our current complex capped-profit structure—which made sense when it looked like there might be one dominant AGI effort but doesn’t in a world of many great AGI companies—we are moving to a normal capital structure where everyone has stock. This is not a sale,…

AGI can't really be a winner take all market. The 'reward' for general intelligence is infinite as a monopoly and it accelerates productivity. Not only is there infinite incentive to compete, but theres decreasing costs to. The only world in which AGI is winner take all is a world in which it is extremely controlled to the point at which the public cant query it.

You can say the same thing about big companies hiring all the smart people and somehow we think that's ok.
Post reply on HN