641–650 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Awfully familiar to the other South-African emerald mine inheritor tech mogul.
[flagged]
Didnt he call the cave diver, a pedo and the guy who attacked Pelosi's husband they were in a gay relationship.
Extra respect is due to Jan Leike, then: https://x.com/janleike/status/1791498174659715494
Delusional.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Awfully familiar to the other South-African emerald mine inheritor tech mogul.
I'm starting to think the relatives of South African emerald mine owners might not be the best people to trust...
This is bizarre. Someone hands you a contract as you're leaving a company and if you refuse to agree to whatever they dreamt up and sign the company takes back the equity you earned? That can't be legal
Hard to evaluate this without access to the documents. But in CA, agreements cannot be conditioned on the payment of previously earned wages. Equity adds a wrinkle here, but I suspect if the effect of canceling equity is to cause a forfeiture of earned wages, then ultimately whatever contract is signed under that threat is void.
They’re profit participation units and probably come with a few gotchas like these.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Superintelligence will be the most impactful technology humanity has ever invented, and could help us solve many of the world’s most important problems. But the vast power of superintelligence could also be very dangerous, and could lead to the disempowerment of humanity or even human extinction. Superintelligence that can be always ensured to have the same values and ethics as current humans, is not a superintelli…
You might be interested in how CEV, one framework proposed for superalignment, addresses that concern: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_artificial_intelligen... > our coherent extrapolated volition is "our wish if we knew more, thought faster, were more the people we wished we were, had grown up farther together; where the extrapolation converges rather than diverges, where our wishes cohere rather than interfe…
> After publication, an OpenAI spokesperson sent me this statement: “We have never canceled any current or former employee’s vested equity nor will we if people do not sign a release or nondisparagement agreement when they exit.”
- Updated May 17, 2024, 11:20pm EDT
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The law is slow and is always playing catch up in terms of prosecution, it’s not clear today because this kind of copyright has never been an issue before. Usually it’s just outright stealing content that was protected, no one ever imagined “training” to be a protected use case, humans “train” on copyrighted works all the time, ideally copyrighted works they purchased for said purpose… the same will start to apply fo…
That seems even worse: they had intent to steal and now they're trying to make sure it is properly legislated so nobody else can do it, thus reducing competition. GPT can't get retroactively untrained on stolen data.
I’m not sure what you mean by “steal” because it’s a relative term now, me reading your book isn’t stealing if I paid for it and it inspires me to write my own novel about a totally new story. And if you posted your book online, as of right now the legal precedent is you didn’t make any claims to it (anyone could read it for free) so that’s fair game to train on, just like the text I’m writing now also has no protections.
Nearly all Reddit history ever up to a certain date is available for download now online, only until they changed their policies did they start having tighter controls about how their data could be used.
I am confused about the source of the outrage. A situation where nobody is very clear about what the claim is but everyone is very upset, makes me suspicious. Are employees being mislead about the contract terms at time of signing the contract? Because, obviously, the original contract needs to have some clause regarding the equity situation, right? We can not just make that up at the end. So... are we claiming fraud…
If the two parties are equal, sure. If it's a person vs a corporation of significant size, then no, it's not safe to assume that people have free choice. That's also ignoring motivations apart from business ones, like them actually wanting to be at the leading edge of AI research or wanting to work with particular other individuals. It's a common mistake on here to assume that for every decision there are equally goo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm starting to think the relatives of South African emerald mine owners might not be the best people to trust...
You are not responsible for the sins of your father regardless of how seriously fucked in the head he is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reading that thread it’s really interesting to me. I see how far we’ve come in a short couple of years. But I still can’t grasp how we’ll achieve AGI within any reasonable amount of time. It just seems like we’re missing some really critical… something… Idk. Folks much smarter than I seem worried so maybe I should be too but it just seems like such a long shot.
> Folks much smarter than I seem worried so maybe I should be too but it just seems like such a long shot. Honestly? I'm not too worried We've seen how the google employee that was "seeing a conscience" (in what was basically GPT-2 lol) was a nothing burger We've seen other people in "AI Safety" overplay their importance and hype their CV more than actually do any relevant work. (Usually also playing the diversity ca…