691–700 of 701 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My Open AI bill was (opens dashboard...), $43,xxx last month. First thing tomorrow I'm kicking off another round of searching for alternatives.
Just out of curiosity, what are you using it for that makes it that valuable?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean I'm not a lawyer (of the big city or simple country varieties, or any other variety) but if you talk to most HR people they'll tell you that if they ever get a phone call from a prospective employer to confirm details about someone having worked there previously, the three things they'll typically say are: 1) a confirmation of the dates of employment 2) a confirmation of the role/title during employment 3) whe…
There is no legal justification for ever saying those dates, much less their department and role. I have never heard of any HR department saying anything of the sort, even if this is an oft-quoted meme of HR. I suspect you have actually never worked in HR to provide such statements, you are merely speculating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, looking at the self-dealing going on with WeWork and Adam Neumann, it's not that.
Not sure what you mean here. They tried to IPO in 2019 and all the dirty laundry came out, scuttled the IPO and Neumann got ousted.
And SAM allowed all this under his nose. Making sure OpenAI is ripe for MSFT takeover. This is a back channel deal for takeover. What about the early donors who donated with humanity goal whose funding made it all possible?
I am not sure Sam has any contribution to the OpenAI Software but he gives the world an impression that he owns that and built the entire thing by himself and not giving any attribution to fellow founders.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, the sort of challenges you're talking about are pretty much exactly why I don't consider it feasible that OpenAI has an internal system that is at that level yet . I would consider it to be at the reasonable limits of possibility that they could have an AI that could give a very convincing, detailed, & feasible "grant proposal" style plan for answering those questions, which wouldn't qualify for OPs comment. Wit…
> With a more advanced AI system, one that could build better physics simulation environments, write software that's near maximally efficient, design better atomic modelling and tools than currently exist, and put all of that into thinking through a plan to achieve the technology (effectively experimenting inside its own head), I could maybe see it being possible for it to make it without needing the physical lab wor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Investor here is not someone who puts cash in professionally without running the company. Investor here means whoever owns the stock. There is always an investor in a company even if its just the founder owning 100% stock. The board reports to the shareholders and the management reports to the board. In early stage companies it is possible and likely that all three are the same person, that doesn't change the differe…
The word you are looking for is "shareholder."
This has not do with beneficial ownership of the underlying asset alone. Principals sometimes do not have that relationship. Asset ownership is a common way to benefit from a entity, but not the only way.
Specifically here Sam Altman does not own shares in the for-profit entity and non profit entities do not have shares.
I don't have direct knowledge on how OpenAI handles it, however it is not uncommon to do revenue sharing, or lease an underlying asset like a brand name (WeWork did this) from the Principal directly, or pay for perks like housing, planes etc, or pay lot of money in Salary/Cash compensation, there are myriad ways to benefit from control without share ownership.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sam Altman is not the kind of person that goes into a bigco management job. He'll be doing another startup come Monday.
Yes. I changed my perspective - Altman would not fit in and be happy at Microsoft.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just out of curiosity, what are you using it for that makes it that valuable?
I have basically shipped gpt-4-32k to a few million boomers. Hard to say more without doxxing myself.
Sam and Ilya have recently made public statements about AGI that appear to highlight a fundamental disagreement between them. Sam claims LLMs aren't sufficient for AGI (rightfully so). Ilya claims the transformer architecture, with some modification for efficiency, is actually sufficient for AGI. Obviously transformers are the core component of LLMs today, and the devil is in the details (a future model may resemble…
>Ilya claims the transformer architecture, with some modification for efficiency, is actually sufficient for AGI. I thought this guy was supposed to know what he's talking about? There was a paper that shows LLMs cannot generalise[0]. Anybody who's used ChatGPT can see there's imperfections. [0] https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.12288
Think about the RLHF component that trains LLMs. It's the training itself that generalises - not the final model that becomes a static component.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Prediction: there isn't a difference. The apparent difference is a manifestation of human brain delusion about how human brains work. The Turing test is a beautiful proof of this phenomenon: so and so thing is impossibility hard only achievable via magic capabilities of human brains...oops no actually it's easily achievable now so we better re-define our test. This cycle Will continue until the singularly. Disclosure…
Clearly there's a difference, because the architectures we have don't know how to persist information or further train. Without persistence outside of the context window, they can't even maintain a dynamic, stable higher level goal. Whether you can bolt something small to these architectures for persistence and do some small things and get AGI is an open question, but what we have is clearly insufficient by design. I…