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

661–670 of 746 posts

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#661

Post by pixelbro »

voidspark wrote: post #601
TobTobXX wrote: post #594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

Wait, wait, wait. Our society's gonna fall apart due to a lack of Darwinian selection pressure? What do you think we're selecting for right now?

Seems to me like our culture treats both survival and reproduction as an inalienable right. Most people would go so far as to say everyone deserves love, "there's a lid for every pot".

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#662

Post by coryfklein »

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,…

“Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.”

― Sun Tzu

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#663

Post by monkeyelite »

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.

A version of this is emphasized in the thielverse as well. Companies in heavy competition try to intersect all their qualities to appear unique. Dominant companies talk about their portfolio of side projects to appear in heavy competition (space flight, ed tech, etc).

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#664

Post by coryfklein »

CorpOverreach wrote: post #539
pants2 wrote: post #21

It's somewhat odd to me that many companies operating in the public eye are basically stating "We are creating a digital god, an instrument more powerful than any nuclear weapon" and raising billions to do it, and nobody bats an eye...

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…

Sounds a little too much like, "It's not AGI today ergo it will never become AGI"

Does the current AI give productivity benefits to writing code? Probably. Do OpenAI engineers have exclusive access to more capable models that give them a greater productivity boost than others? Also probably.

If one exclusive group gets the benefit of developing AI with a 20% productivity boost compared to others, and they develop a 2.0 that grants them a 25% boost, then a 3.0 with a 30% boost, etc...

The question eventually becomes, "is AGI technically possible"; is there anything special about meat that cannot be reproduced on silicon? We will find AGI someday, and more than likely that discovery will be aided by the current technologies. It's the path here that matters, not the specific iteration of generative LLM tech we happen to be sitting on in May 2025.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#665

Post by monkeyelite »

jimbokun wrote: post #248
drewbeck wrote: post #82

I see OpenAI's original form as the last gasp of a kind of liberal tech; in a world where "doing good" was seen as very important, the non-profit approach made sense and got a lot of people on board. These days the Altmans and the pmarcas of the world are much more comfortable expressing their authoritarian, self-centered world views; the "evolving" structure of Open AI is fully in line with that. They want to be the…

They deeply believe in the Ayn Rand mindset that the system that brings them the most individual wealth is also the best system for humanity as a whole.

Which Ayn Rand book says that?

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#666

Post by Jensson »

Closi wrote: post #613
somenameforme wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 curre…

> you can teach an AI a novel language by feeding in a fairly small amount of words and grammar of example text into context.

You didn't teach it, the model is still the same after you ran that. That is the same as a human following instructions without internalizing the knowledge, he forgets it afterward and didn't learn what he performed. If that was all humans did then there would be no point in school etc, but humans do so much more than that.

As long as LLM are like an Alzheimer's human they will never become a general intelligence. And following instructions is not learning at all, learning is building an internal model for those instructions that is more efficient and general than the instructions themselves, humans do that and that is how we manage to advance science and knowledge.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#667

Post by Retric »

coryfklein wrote: post #664
CorpOverreach wrote: post #539

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…

Sounds a little too much like, "It's not AGI today ergo it will never become AGI" Does the current AI give productivity benefits to writing code? Probably. Do OpenAI engineers have exclusive access to more capable models that give them a greater productivity boost than others? Also probably. If one exclusive group gets the benefit of developing AI with a 20% productivity boost compared to others, and they develop a 2…

> Does the current AI give productivity benefits to writing code? Probably.

> If one exclusive group gets the benefit of developing AI with a 20% productivity boost compared to others, and they develop a 2.0 that grants them a 25% boost, then a 3.0 with a 30% boost, etc...

That’s a bit of a stretch, generative AI is least capable of helping with novel code such as needed to make AGI.

If anything I’d expect companies working on generative AI to be at a significant disadvantage when trying to make AGI because they’re trying to leverage what they are already working on. That’s fine for incremental improvement, but companies rarely ride one wave of technology to the forefront of the next. Analog > digital photography, ICE > EV, coal mining > oil, etc.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#668

Post by accrual »

d--b wrote: post #43

Mmh am I the only one who has been offered to participate in a “comparison between 2 chatgpt versions”? The newer version included sponsored products in its response. I thought that was quite effed up.

I've gotten those messages, but the products recommended in both versions were the same, down to the model number, so I don't think it's strictly product placement. The products I was looking at were old oscilloscopes.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#669

Post by Filligree »

lossolo wrote: post #640
Muromec wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly what I would expect from a lot of people. Post factum rationalization is a thing.

There is no post factum rationalization here. If you ask a human to think about how they do something before they do it, there's no post factum rationalization. If you ask an LLM to do the same, it will give you a different answer. So, there is a difference. It's all about having knowledge of your internal state and being conscious of your actions and how you perform them, so you can learn from that knowledge. Withou…

If you ask a human to think about how to do a thing, before they do it, then you will also get a different answer.

There’s a good reason why schools spend so much time training that skill!

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#670

Post by anticensor »

otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #622
anticensor wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Cheap Chinese single-board computers made specifically for inference is the missing puzzle piece. (No, GPU's and especially Nvidia is not that.) Also the current crop of AI agents are just utter crap. But that's a skill issue of the people coding them, expect actual advances here soon.

Aren't DGX Spark or Framework Desktop cheap enough?
Post reply on HN