631–640 of 734 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Legally or illegally gained access too. Lest we forget Meta pirating books
And the legality of this may vary by jurisdiction. There’s a nonzero chance that they pay a few million in the US for stealing books but the EU or Canada decide the training itself was illegal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> LLM building is not some religious work. To a lot of tech leadership, it is. The belief in AGI as a savior figure is a driving motivator. Just listen to how Altman, Thiel or Musk talk about it.
That’s how they talk about it publicly. Internally I can attest that the companies for two of the three you list are not like that internally at all. It’s all marketing, outwardly focused.
AGI is their capitalist savior, here to redeem a failing system from having to pay pesky workers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's limited or no evidence of this in other domains where astonishing pay packages are used to assemble the best teams in the world (e.g., sports).
Sports have a much, much tighter feedback loop on performance than anything in software, and certainly tighter than R&D. Same with a lot of the financial roles with comp distributions like this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sports have a much, much tighter feedback loop on performance than anything in software, and certainly tighter than R&D. Same with a lot of the financial roles with comp distributions like this.
Either Meta makes rapid progress on frontier-level AI in the next year or it doesn't -- there's definitely a feedback loop that's measured in tangible units of time. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that when Zuck personally hires you at this level of compensation, there will be performance expectations and you won't stick around for long if you don't deliver. Even in top-tier sports, many underperformers ma…
> Even in top-tier sports, many underperformers stick around for a couple years or a half-decade at seven or eight figure compensation before being shown the door.
This can happen in the explicit hopes that their performance improves, not because it's unclear whether they are performing, and not generally over lapses in contract.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chief AI doomer Eliezer Yudkowsky's latest book on this subject is literally called "If Anyone Builds it, Everyone Dies". I don't think he's secretly trying to persuade people to make investments to reach this goal first .
The grandparent asked what money was in it for rationalists. You're saying an AI researcher selling AI Doom books can't be profiting off hype about AI?
Selling AI doom books nets considerably less money than actually working on AI (easily an order of magnitude or two). Whatever hangups I have with Yudkowsky, I'm very confident he's not doing it for the money (or even prestige; being an AI thought leader at a lab gives you a built-in audience).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Capitalists don't like markets, or at least not the markets that we're told capitalism will bring about. The "markets" most people learn about are artificial Econ 101 constructions. They're pedagogical tools for explaining elasticity and competition under the assumption that all widgets are equally and infinitely fungible. An assumption which ignores marginal value, individual preferences, innovation and other thin…
what is his end goal in being left to trade as he sees fit? is it maximizing profit? is that the fundamental goal of all actors in this system?
I've seen paying people too much completely erode the core of teams. It's really hard to convince yourself to work 60 hour weeks when you have generational FU$ and a family you love.
I am not saying exactly they don't love their family... but it's not necessarily a priority over glory, more money, or being competitive. And if the relationship is healthy and built on solid foundations usually the partner knows what they're getting into and accept the other person (children on the other hand had no choice).
It's a weird take to tie this up with team morale, tough.