Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI and Elon Musk

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

701–710 of 1001 posts

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#701

Post by nibab »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #484
davej wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're misreading the intention here. The intention of closing it up as they approach AGI is to protect against dangerous applications of the technology. That is how I read it anyway and I don't see a reason to interpret it in a nefarious way.

"Tools for me, but not for thee."

I think the fundamental conflict here is that OpenAI was started as a counter-balance to google AI and all other future resource-rich cos that decide to pursue AI BUT at the same time they needed a socially responsible / ethical vector to piggyback off of to be able to raise money and recruit talent as a non profit.

So, they cant release science that the googles of the world can use to their advantage BUT they kind of have to because that's their whole mission.

The whole thing was sort of dead on arrival and Ilya's email dating to 2016 (!!!!) only amplifies that.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#702

Post by antonyt »

2pointsomone wrote: post #314

If anyone paying the right price to access a product, and no underlying technology, making it "open", isn't most of the world's technology open? Isn't Apple really OpenApple? Isn't Oracle really OpenOracle? Apple probably puts out more open-source tech than OpenAI. Does the word mean much anymore, then? Is it nothing more than a sentiment then? Perhaps OpenAI should have renamed itself to "AI for all" or something wh…

The real villain here is OpenTable!

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#703

Post by boringg »

pama wrote: post #598
leereeves wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think the employees they've given PPUs to aren't expecting a financial return?

I don’t see how expecting a financial return is in conflict with the original mission statement. Of course the employees expect a financial return.

If you advertise your company as a wholesome benevolent not-for-profit and generate a lot of goodwill for your human enhancing mission and then pull a bait and switch to what looks to be a profit/power motive at all costs. It certainly makes most people who are following the organization sour on your mission and your reputation.

Typically when organizations do something like that it speaks to some considerable underlying issues at the core of the company and the people in charge of it.

It is particularly troubling when it pertains to technology that we all believe to be incredibly important.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#704

Post by mort96 »

hiatus wrote: post #675
mort96 wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, the harm from these LLMs are mostly in how freely accessible they are. Just pay OpenAI a relatively tiny fee and you can generate tonnes of plausible spam designed to promote your product or service or trick people into giving you money. That's the primary problem we're facing right now. The problem is... keeping them closed source isn't helping with that problem, it only serves to guarantee OpenAI a cut of the…

> Just pay OpenAI a relatively tiny fee and you can generate tonnes of plausible spam designed to promote your product or service or trick people into giving you money. That's the primary problem we're facing right now. Is content generation really the thing holding spammers back? I haven't seen a huge influx of more realistic spam so I wonder your basis for this statement.

There's a ton of LLM spam on platforms like Reddit and Twitter, and product review sites.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#705

Post by pton_xd »

hef19898 wrote: post #658
mlrtime wrote: post #642

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've said "reasonably well" a couple times here.... I think there can be book written between the gap of "reasonably well" and "prosperous". And these things are all relative of course... if "reasonably well" is the best in the world at the time, then great. But when you have another system to compare to at the same time, "reasonably well" falls apart very quickly. I'm not sure if you lived in a Soviet country duri…

It is not to glorify the Soviet system. Looking back so, from the end of the Stalin era to, say, the mid-70s, the USSR did compete rather well so: - military and space tech was mostly on par (a bunch conflicts, incl. Vietnam, show that) - economically, the USSR was stable - people were not starving Of course, the was less luxury and consumerism, but that was true for a lot of other countries as well in Western Europe…

"Stable and not dying" isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of a system.

And anyway, they had no freedom, which is the real issue. Communist governance is fundamentally opposed to liberty; the system can't allow it.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#706

Post by _heimdall »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #640
_heimdall wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> most important invention in human history How can we possibly weigh all human inventions and decide this one, which has yet to even be invented, is the most important?

That's an easy one. Lots of ways. Just think about it for a minute. Here's a quick list I came up with: First time we've created something artificial we can talk sensibly to and get sensible knowledgeable responses. Exporting expertise in a way that's trivial to consume and employ for millions of people. Allow autonomous robotic servants to operate in a chaotic environment such as a home or business. Replace entire s…

AI, and therefore AGI, haven't been created yet as far as we know. We don't know what it will be capable of, what it will do to our society, or to humanity as a whole.

Our entire world changed with some of the most basic inventions that allowed for agrarian societies. The same goes for basic inventions that allowed for the industrial revolution.

I understand that the hopes for A(G)I include changes that would be hugely impactful, but they simply haven't materialized yet. Even when they have, how can we possibly weigh the different inventions? We will never know what the world would look like without agriculture, oil, the printing press, electricity, etc. Is the weighing entirely based on modeling, opinion, and/or hope?

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#707

Post by timeon »

TheAlchemist wrote: post #285
dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is OpenAI had a reputation to protect, Musk can't sink any lower at this point, and his stans will persist. The fact that they slinging mud at each other just proves the mutual criticism though, and provides an edifying spectacle for the rest of us.

> Musk can't sink any lower at this point, and his stans will persist. You sure about that ? For now they are largely looking away (and boy it's hard !) from his 'far right' adventures. But it was just reported that he met with Trump. And it's pretty clear that if Trump is elected and does cancel EV subsides as he says he will do, Tesla is dead and he knows it. So now, we have both of those guys, having something eac…

> as he says he will do

Depends if there really is business clash between ICE donors and Musk.

What is promised to public is not important if your voters are true believers.

Same for Musk, he can spin anything to his believers as well.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#708

Post by Jensson »

hef19898 wrote: post #549
Jensson wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the main reason they are there is someone paid them to be there. Of course humans like to do good, so why not do good while getting paid, but the glue for the whole system is individualism, that is what makes all the workers go to work every day so it is what keeps them together. Remove the pay and all the workers scatters and move to different places in almost every case. Or in other words, that is an individual…

What, no! In any system people have to work to live: food, housing and such cost money. Doing "good" has nithing to do with it, and I never said that. The question is, do you care about more than the monthly pay check for something you pass most of your day doing or not? What keeps the workers showing up to work is the need to live. What keeps them at a particular place is a myriad of things. Individualism is not par…

> What keeps the workers showing up to work is the need to live. What keeps them at a particular place is a myriad of things. Individualism is not part of that.

Lets say an equivalent company with similar culture and people offered twice the salary, how many would say no? People saying yes in that situation are not there for the collective, they are there for their own sake first and foremost. The collective is an afterthought since they abandon it the instant a better opportunity appears.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#709

Post by sva_ »

It is interesting that their narration of the story includes emails from 2017, early 2018, and late 2018, a chronological order they point out.

But the last email from Ilya to Elon and back, which rounds off this narrative, is from early 2016 - and they curiously don't mention the date here.

Re: OpenAI and Elon Musk

#710

Post by Jensson »

bergen wrote: post #550
Jensson wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the mindset there is that workers wants money, just like everywhere else. Not sure why you think otherwise. If you mean that humans sometimes do more than the bare minimum, sure they do that. But that is an inherent part of humans, that has nothing to do with individualism or collectivist systems, humans do that in all systems, that is a part of the value of a human worker and why you pay them to work for you.

>No, the mindset there is that workers wants money, just like everywhere else. Not sure why you think otherwise. Because I know people that work there, and money surely isn't the first reason you are teaching a bunch of brats while having parts of the public look down on you if you can easily get double the amount somewhere outside of the field. Same for political work, crowdsourcing, .. People take gratification in…

Lets say an equivalent company with similar culture and people offered twice the salary, how many would say no? People saying yes in that situation are not there for the collective, they are there for their own sake first and foremost. The collective is an afterthought since they abandon it the instant a better opportunity appears.

That would apply to those teachers and doctors and nurses as well, almost all of them would gladly abandon their current kids/patients to go help other kids/patients if they were paid twice the salary. That is how we know they aren't there for the collective good of the organization, they just care about doing something good at any place with no feelings for that particular collective.

If you mean that people are helpful etc, then that is a completely different thing from them actually caring enough about a particular organization.

Post reply on HN