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

Ilya Sutskever to leave OpenAI

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

721–730 of 855 posts

Re: Ilya Sutskever to leave OpenAI

#721

Post by throwthrowuknow »

cm2187 wrote: post #481
fnordpiglet wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t feel that OpenAI has a huge moat against say Anthropic. And I don’t know OpenAI needs Microsoft nearly as much as Microsoft needs OpenAI

But is it even clear what is the next big leap after LLM? I have the feeling many tend to extrapolate the progress of AI from the last 2 years to the next 30 years but research doesn't always work like that (though improvements in computing power did).

I don’t think we’re even close to exhausting the potential of transformer architectures. gpt4o shows that a huge amount can be gained by implementing work done on understanding other media modalities. There’s a lot of audio that they can continue to train on still and the voice interactions they collect will go into further fine tuning. Even after that plays out there will be video to integrate next and thanks to physics simulations and 3D rendering there is a potentially endless and readily generated license free supply of it, at least for the simpler examples. For more complex real world video they could just set up web cams in public areas around the world where consent isn’t required by law and collect masses of data every second. Given that audio seems to have enabled emotional understanding and possibly even humour, I can’t imagine what all might fall out of video. At the least it’s going to improve reasoning since it will involve predicting cause and effect. There are probably a lot of others you could add though we don’t have large datasets for them.

Re: Ilya Sutskever to leave OpenAI

#722

Post by Jensson »

xdennis wrote: post #696
Jensson wrote: post #658

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An AGI could replace human experts at tasks that doesn't require physical embodiment, like diagnosing patients, drafting contracts, doing your taxes etc. If you still do those manually and not just offload all of it to ChatGPT then you would greatly benefit from a real AGI that could do those tasks on their own. And no, using ChatGPT like you use a search engine isn't ChatGPT solving your problem, that is you solving…

> An AGI could replace human experts at tasks that doesn't require physical embodiment, like diagnosing patients, drafting contracts, doing your taxes etc. How come the goal posts for AGI are always the best of what people can do? I can't diagnose anyone, yet I have GI. Reminds me of: > Will Smith: Can a robot write a symphony? Can a robot take a blank canvas and turn it into a masterpiece? > I Robot: Can you?

> How come the goal posts for AGI are always the best of what people can do?

Not the best, I just want it to be able to do what average professionals can do because average humans can become average professionals in most fields.

> I can't diagnose anyone, yet I have GI.

You can learn to, an AGI system should be able to learn to as well. And since we can copy AGI learning it means that if it hasn't learned to diagnose people yet then it probably isn't an AGI, because an AGI should be able to learn that without humans changing its code and once it learned it once we copy it forever and now the entire AGI knows how to do it.

So, the AGI should be able to do all the things you could do if we include all versions of you that learned different fields. If the AGI can't do that then you are more intelligent than it in those areas, even if the singular you isn't better at those things than it is.

For these reasons it makes more sense to compare an AGI to humanity rather than individual humans, because for an AGI there is no such thing as "individuals", at least not the way we make AI today.

Re: Ilya Sutskever to leave OpenAI

#723

Post by disqard »

ActionHank wrote: post #693
kinnth wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI has now evolved beyond just the science and it's biggest issue is in the productization. Finding use cases for what's already available ALONG with new models will be where success lies. ChatGPT is the number 1 brand in AI and as such needs to learn what it's selling, not how its technology works. It always sucks when mission and vision don't align with the nerds ideas, but I think it's probably the best move for b…

> AI has now evolved beyond just the science Pretty weak take there bud. If we just look at the Gartner Hype Cycle that marketing and business people love so much it would seem to me that we are at the peak, just before the downfall. They are hyping hard to sell more, when they should be prepping for the coming dip, building their tech and research side more to come out the other side. Regardless, a tech company with…

I'm siding with you here. The same is happening at Google, but they definitely have momentum from past decades, so even if they go "full Boeing", there's a long way to fall.

Meanwhile, OpenAI (and the rest of the folks riding the hype train) will soon enter the trough. They're not diversified and I'm not sure that they can keep running at a loss in this post-ZIRP world.

Re: Ilya Sutskever to leave OpenAI

#724

Post by senseiV »

CooCooCaCha wrote: post #689
kinnth wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI has now evolved beyond just the science and it's biggest issue is in the productization. Finding use cases for what's already available ALONG with new models will be where success lies. ChatGPT is the number 1 brand in AI and as such needs to learn what it's selling, not how its technology works. It always sucks when mission and vision don't align with the nerds ideas, but I think it's probably the best move for b…

“Its biggest issue is in the productization.” That’s not true at all. The biggest issue is that it doesn’t work. You can’t actually trust ai systems and that’s not a product issue.

if the ai is the product, and the product isnt trustable, isnt that a product issue??

Re: Ilya Sutskever to leave OpenAI

#725

Post by anthonypasq »

fprog wrote: post #594
fsloth wrote: post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we look at history of innovation and invention it’s very typical the original discovery and final productization are done by different people. For many reasons, but a lot of them are universal I would say. E.g. Oppenheimer’s team created the bomb, then following experts finetuned the subsequent weapon systems and payload designs. Etc.

Except OpenAI hasn’t yet finished discovery on its true goal: AGI. I wonder if they risk plateauing at a local maximum.

how do you know that is actually currently their true goal. it appears to me that the goal has shifted, and the people that cared about the original goal are leaving.

Re: Ilya Sutskever to leave OpenAI

#727

Post by CtrlAltmanDel »

bsenftner wrote: post #590
sheeshkebab wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The next revolution is going to be when people realize what we have already Enlighten us

It is both subtle and obvious, yet many are missing this: if you want/need a deep subject matter expert in virtually any subject, write a narrative biography describing your expert using the same language that expert would use to describe themselves; this generates a context within the LLM carrying that subject matter expertise, and now significantly higher quality responses are generated. Duplicate this process for…

[dead]

Re: Ilya Sutskever to leave OpenAI

#728

Post by trashtester »

chx wrote: post #699
trashtester wrote: post #692

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, 1-3% was a best case. While I agree it's a net zero, even those who argue for it really don't claim much more than a couple of %. I actually expected objections on the opposite direction. But then, this is not twitter/X. The point is that something that can easily generate 20%-100% growth per year (AGI/ASI) is so much more important that the best case prediction for crypto's effect on the economy are not eve…

LLM is not AGI and there's no way to AGI from LLM. Put down the kool-aid.

I never claimed llm's are agi. Not all neural nets are llm's.

Re: Ilya Sutskever to leave OpenAI

#729

Post by jprd »

deadbabe wrote: post #34
jprd wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. They joined OpenAI with the understanding that it was meant to be an non-profit with a mission to benefit humanity.

Did you not read what I said? They joined a non-profit and eventually realized the mission is futile.

I read what you said, and I apologize for not being a bit more clear.

I completely understand your perspective, and I hope I'm always strong enough to listen to my conscience and obey my morals.

One of the first interviews I was ever offered in a technical role was for Bechtel, in 2004. I was desperate to break into a career, I accepted the interview. I was in the car driving to the location, and just realized I couldn't do it. I couldn't ignore my morality to work for such a clear and direct war profiteer, that as a private company, had no oversight.

If I join a non-profit that has a humanitarian mission, I do so because I'm into the mission and feel fulfilled by that more than my comp. I can't imagine trading that in just because @sama got thirsty.

The mission is futile, the mission at this organization has been compromised and corrupted. Resign and continue your mission elsewhere.

Re: Ilya Sutskever to leave OpenAI

#730

Post by sk11001 »

pcurve wrote: post #720
sk11001 wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This might not be bad from the perspective of the remaining employees, it might be that the annoying people are leaving the room.

In my experience, good ones leave first, followed by those who enjoyed working with them and or ones who are not longer able to get work done.

You need to think about OpenAI specifically - Ilya basically attempted a coup last year and failed, stayed in the company for months afterwards, according to rumours had limited contributions to the breakthroughs in research and was assigned to lead the most wishy-washy project of superalignment.

I’m not seeing “the good ones” leaving in this case.

Post reply on HN