621–630 of 701 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No I don’t think that’s what happened at all. Also memorizing code and rewriting it is very much IP theft.
It's not if it's not literal. You can easily reimplement the same ML architecture which you have written before. Also, it's not really OpenAIs IP, if they kept it secret.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/19/16503076/oracle-vs-googl...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the contrary this makes it seem like he was surprised.
No, he does not seem surprised as he had his mind made up about an important life decision and a carefully crafted resignation letter ready in a matter of hours.
Edit: I called it https://twitter.com/karaswisher/status/1725682088639119857 nothing to do with dishonesty. That’s just the official reason. ———- I haven’t heard anyone commenting about this, but the two main figures here-consider: This MUST come down to a disagreement between Altman and Sutskever. Also interesting that Sutskever tweeted a month and a half ago https://twitter.com/ilyasut/status/1707752576077176907 Th…
Edit: I called it https://twitter.com/karaswisher/status/1725682088639119857 nothing to do with dishonesty. That’s just the official reason. ———- I haven’t heard anyone commenting about this, but the two main figures here-consider: This MUST come down to a disagreement between Altman and Sutskever. Also interesting that Sutskever tweeted a month and a half ago https://twitter.com/ilyasut/status/1707752576077176907 Th…
So I should cancel any plans to build on the GPT platform? Because it doesn't align with the values of Ilya and Helen? Open AI- we need clarity on your new direction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>rightfully so How the hell can people be so confident about this? You describe two smart people reasonably disagreeing about a complicated topic
The LLMs of today are just multidimensional mirrors that contain humanity's knowledge. They don't advance that knowledge, they just regurgitate it, remix it, and expose patterns. We train them. They are very convincing, and show that the Turing test may be flawed. Given that AGI means reaching "any intellectual task that human beings can perform", we need a system that can go beyond lexical reasoning and actually con…
The only think flawed here is this statement. Are you even familiar with the premise of Turing test?
This all seems so weird, and the list of Board members doesn't make this any easier to understand. Apart from the 3 insiders, there are 3 other board members. 2 of them seem complete no names and might not qualify for any important corporate board. In a for profit shareholders in theory control the board, in a non profit I am not even sure of who really has control over things.
There is one OpenAI board member who has an art degree and is part of some kind of cultish "singularity" spiritual/neo-religious thing. That individual has also never had a real job and is on the board of several other non-profits. What the hell were they thinking? Just because you are a non-profit doesn't mean you should imitate other non-profits and put crazies on the board.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can remember to do something tomorrow after doing many things in-between. I can reason about something and then combine it with something I reasoned about at a different time. I can learn new tasks. I can pick a goal of my own choosing and then still be working towards it intermittently weeks later. The examples we have now of GPT LLM cannot do these things. Doing those things may be a small change, or may not be t…
That just proves we real-time fine tuning of the neuron weights. It is computationally intensive but not fundamentally different. A million token context would look close to long short-term memory and frequent fine-tuning will be akin to long-term memory. I most probably am anthropomorphizing completely wrong. But point is humans may not be any more creative than an LLM, just that we have better computation and input…
I think creativity is made of 2 parts - generating novel ideas, and filtering bad ideas. For the second part we need good feedback. Humans and LLMs are just as good at novel ideation, but humans have the advantage on feedback. We have a body, access to the real world, access to other humans and plenty of tools.
This is not something an android robot couldn't eventually have, and on top of that AIs got the advantage of learning from massive data. They surpass humans when they can leverage it - see AlphaFold, for example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Per other profiles of OpenAI, this is an organization of true believers in the benefits and dangers of AGI. It's also a non-profit, not a company. All this to say that the board is probably unlike the boards of the vast majority of tech companies.
This. There were no investors on the board -- as Jason @ all-in said "that's just crazy".
lol
> "that's just crazy".
why is it crazy? the purpose of OpenAI is not to make investors rich - having investors on the board trying to make money for themselves would be crazy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The onus is on OpenAI to prove that in a court of law, in front of a jury.
No, the onus would be on Sam Altman to prove that the statement was materially false, AND intended to slander him, AND actually succeeded in affecting his reputation. When you're a public person, the bar for winning a defamation case is very high.