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

611–620 of 746 posts

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#611

Post by amelius »

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?

Well, it could pretend to be playing 4d chess and meanwhile destroy the economy and from there take over the world.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#612

Post by fakedang »

Takennickname wrote: post #604
huijzer wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Mohnish isn't a tech bro though, in my books. After selling his company, guy retreated away from the tech scene to get into Buffett-style value investing. And if you read his book, it's about glorifying the small businessmen running motels and garages, who invest bit by bit into the stock market.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#613

Post by Closi »

somenameforme wrote: post #575
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you I wonder, do you have a hypothesis as to what would be a measurement that would differentiate AGI vs Not-AGI?

Differentiating between AGI and non-AGI, if we ever get remotely close, would be challenging, but for now it's trivial. The defining feature of AGI is recursive self improvement across any field. Without self improvement, you're just regurgitating. Humanity started with no advanced knowledge or even a language. In what should practically be a heartbeat at the speed of distributed computing with perfect memory and com…

I'm not sure humans meet the definition here.

If you took the average human from birth and gave them only 'the most primitive first principles', the chance that they would have novel insights into medicine is doubtful.

I also disagree with your following statement:

> Right now we're trying to essentially train on the entire corpus of human writing. That is a defacto acknowledgement that the absolute endgame for current tech is simple mimicry

At worst it's complex mimicry! But I would also say that mimicry is part of intelligence in general and part of how humans discover. It's also easy to see that AI can learn things - you can teach an AI a novel language by feeding in a fairly small amount of words and grammar of example text into context.

I also disagree with this statement:

> One fundamental difference is that AGI would not need some absurdly massive data dump to become intelligent

I don't think how something became intelligent should affect whether it is intelligent or not. These are two different questions.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#614

Post by [deleted] »

fooker wrote: post #209
jjani wrote: post #107

SamA is in a hurry because he's set to lose the race. We're at peak valuation and he needs to convert something now . If the entrenched giants (Google, Microsoft and Apple) catch up - and Google 100% has, if not surpassed - they have a thousand levers to pull and OpenAI is done for. Microsoft has realized this, hence why they're breaking up with them - Google and Anthropic have shown they don't need OpenAI. Galaxy ph…

Google is pretty far behind. They have random one off demos and they beat benchmarks yes, but try to use Google’s AI stuff for real work and it falls apart really fast.

[deleted]

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#615

Post by giik »

etruong42 wrote: post #115

The intro sounds awfully familiar... > Sam’s Letter to Employees. > OpenAI is not a normal company and never will be. Where did I hear something like that before... > Founders' IPO Letter > Google is not a conventional company. We do not intend to become one. I wonder if it's intentional or perhaps some AI-assisted regurgitation prompted by "write me a successful letter to introduce a new corporate structure of a tec…

When I got to that part (line 1) I stopped reading.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#616

Post by netdevphoenix »

somenameforme wrote: post #575
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you I wonder, do you have a hypothesis as to what would be a measurement that would differentiate AGI vs Not-AGI?

Differentiating between AGI and non-AGI, if we ever get remotely close, would be challenging, but for now it's trivial. The defining feature of AGI is recursive self improvement across any field. Without self improvement, you're just regurgitating. Humanity started with no advanced knowledge or even a language. In what should practically be a heartbeat at the speed of distributed computing with perfect memory and com…

I mostly agree with you. But if you think about it mimicry is an aspect of intelligence. If I can copy you and do what you do reliably, regardless of the method used, it does capture an aspect of intelligence. The true game changer is a reflective AI that can automatically improve upon itself

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#617

Post by anshumankmr »

huijzer wrote: post #582
atlasunshrugged wrote: post #13

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.

Its quite true. The closest thing to a moat OpenAI has is the memory feature.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#618

Post by whiplash451 »

atlasunshrugged wrote: post #13

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,…

I read this line as : we were completely off the chart from a corp structure standpoint.

We need to get closer to the norm and give shares of a for-profit to employees in order to create retention.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#619

Post by toxik »

danenania wrote: post #494
zharknado wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel this. I had a very productive convo with an LLM today and realized that a huge part of the value of it was that it addressed my questions in a focused way, without trying to sell me anything or generate SEO rankings or register ad impressions. It just helped me. And that was incredibly refreshing in a digital world that generally feels adversarial. Then the thought came, when will they start showing ads here.…

The "good" thing is this is all way too expensive to be ad-supported. Maybe there will be some ad-supported products using very small/cheap models, but the leading edge stuff is always going to be at the leading-edge of compute usage too, and someone has to pay the bill. Even with investors subsidizing a lot of the costs, it's still very expensive to use the best models heavily for real work.

It is guaranteed that the models will become salespeople in disguise with time. This is just how the world works. Hopefully competition can stave it off but I doubt it.

It's also why totalitarian regimes love it, they can simply train it to regurgitate a modified version of reality.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#620

Post by mlnj »

anticensor wrote: post #605
otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The smaller models are becoming even more capable now. Add that with a suite of tools and integrations and you can do most of what you do online within the infra at home.
Post reply on HN