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

Sam Altman returns as CEO, OpenAI has a new initial board

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

771–780 of 787 posts

Re: Sam Altman returns as CEO, OpenAI has a new initial board

#771

Post by epgui »

monkeywork wrote: post #403
hanselot wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not filing your home with more triangulating spyware is a decision.

Yes, but that's not the decision the person in this thread was struggling with - they were struggling with the idea that they may invest $$ into something that 2,3,10 years down the road no longer works because a company went out of biz. Sounds like they would like to have the devices but have a hard time pulling the trigger for a fear of sinking money into to something temporary.

Yeah, and the operational stability of a company is a factor that goes straight to its ability to continue as a going concern. So it's reasonable for many people to base their decision on this kind of drama (even if not everyone agrees on the importance of this factor).

Re: Sam Altman returns as CEO, OpenAI has a new initial board

#772

Post by lying4fun »

Obscurity4340 wrote: post #603
lying4fun wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn’t mind, comments like this give insight to people’s trajectories

What was the gist of it?

Ahh the gist is it’s a personal anecdote of some anonymous dude from hacker news

That makes it interesting

Seemed genuine to me

Re: Sam Altman returns as CEO, OpenAI has a new initial board

#773

Post by Obscurity4340 »

lying4fun wrote: post #772
Obscurity4340 wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was the gist of it?

Ahh the gist is it’s a personal anecdote of some anonymous dude from hacker news That makes it interesting Seemed genuine to me

I meant "what was the deal with the flagged comment", why was it removed and what was the gist of what it originally intended to express?

Re: Sam Altman returns as CEO, OpenAI has a new initial board

#774

Post by Obscurity4340 »

silexia wrote: post #684
nanna wrote: post #613

> I am so looking forward to finishing the job of building beneficial AGI with you all—best team in the world, best mission in the world. Sam Altman lives in a very different world to mine.

Everyone should read "Superintelligence". OpenAI is rushing towards a truly terrifying outcome that in most scenarios includes the extinction of the human species.

Why has Nick been so quiet about all this, isn't this his particular wheelhouse?

Re: Sam Altman returns as CEO, OpenAI has a new initial board

#775

Post by throwuwu »

xp84 wrote: post #747
throwuwu wrote: post #710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you know the outcome is favourable then you go all in. Right now the other competitors are just trying to match GPT4, if they knew AGI was achievable then they would throw everything they have at it in order to not be left out.

Show me the researchers and companies where the people in charge and the people doing the work don’t think it’s possible to get better than GPT-4 and are slow-rolling things. I suppose maybe there are ones where they are slow-rolling because of their opinions about existential risk of AGI. But that’s not contingent on what OpenAI says or does.

And I can show you companies that have multiple other costly research projects. All in means all in.

Re: Sam Altman returns as CEO, OpenAI has a new initial board

#776

Post by bsenftner »

idontknowifican wrote: post #673
bsenftner wrote: post #664

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And by "actually comprehend" that means to accept arbitrary input, identify it, identify it's functional sub-components, identify each sub-component's functional nature as used by the larger entity, and then identify how each functional aspect combines to create the larger, more complex final entity. Doing this generically with arbitrary inputs is comprehension, is artificial general intelligence.

i think the point trying to be made is mimicry and derivation are hard for us to discern from an AI. there is some complex definition for AGI that exists, but the fact laypeople cant make the determination, will always result in the GP comment

This point I'm trying to make is to describe comprehension as the equal to decomposing an observation, identifying each sub-component of an observation and the key characteristic of that component which when combined with the other sub-components create the original observed entity. This is akin to proving the object can exist, comprehension is mentally proving to yourself that this can exist and you're not being deceived. Comprehension is fraud detection via 'reversing compiling' an observation to prove to yourself that it is understandable and can indeed exist.

Re: Sam Altman returns as CEO, OpenAI has a new initial board

#777

Post by tsunamifury »

vikramkr wrote: post #737
tsunamifury wrote: post #694

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems so odd to be such an jerk about it…

After wave after wave of theranos/crypto/NFTs/ftx etc etc honestly I've got very little patience left and they've soured the entire national mood on silicon valley to the point where this crowd was the justification for a lot of people to want to let SVB take down actual companies with it instead of a bailout. I find them actively harmful, and now they're trying to whip up a storm whining about anticompetitivenes to…

You are conflating a ton of completely unrelated issues here to a point of total ignorance.

Re: Sam Altman returns as CEO, OpenAI has a new initial board

#778

Post by int_19h »

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #751
int_19h wrote: post #730

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, of course. But that is precisely what people mean when they say that the problem isn't AI, it's people using AI nefariously or negligently.

"The problem isn't that anyone can buy an F16. The problem is that some people use their F16 to conduct airstrikes nefariously or negligently."

You persist in using highly misleading analogies. A military F-16 comes with missiles and other things that are in and of themselves highly destructive, and can be activated at a push of a button. An LLM does not - you'd have to acquire something else capable of killing people first, and wire the LLM into it. The argument you're making is exactly like claiming that people shouldn't be able to own iPhones because they could be repurposed as controllers for makeshift guided missiles.

Speaking of which, it's perfectly legal for a civilian to own a fighter plane such as an F-16 in US and many other countries. You just have to demilitarize it, meaning no weapon pods.

Re: Sam Altman returns as CEO, OpenAI has a new initial board

#779

Post by crotchfire »

stefs wrote: post #741
jurgenaut23 wrote: post #661

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I think that, despite being a joke, your comment is deeper than it looks like. As model capabilities increase, the likelihood that they interfere with the instructions that we provide increases as well. It’s really like hiring someone really smart on your team: you cannot expect them to be taking orders without ever discussing them, like your average employee would do. That’s actually a feature, not a bug, but…

something like this is the premise in the peter watts novels of the sunflower cycle. the starship AIs intelligence is about the level of a chimp, because any higher and they start developing their own motives.

Why would that make any sense?

Humans "have their own motives" because we're designed to reproduce. We're designed to reproduce because anything that didn't, over billions of years, no longer exists today.

Why on earth would an artifact produced by gradient descent have its own motives?

This is just an absurd consequence of extrapolating from a sample size of one. The only intelligent thing we know of is humans, humans have their own motives, therefore all intelligent things have their own motives. It's bogus.

Re: Sam Altman returns as CEO, OpenAI has a new initial board

#780

Post by crotchfire »

kranke155 wrote: post #697
intellectronica wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me the way it's formulated in the press release sounds a lot like what is usually said of someone on the road to a "distinguished engineering fellow" role - lots of respect, opportunity to command enough resources to do meaningful work, but no managerial or leadership responsibilities.

If they don't throw him out, I'd say the only explanation is they don't want one of their best researchers working for someone else.

That is exactly the purpose of "distinguished engineering fellow" roles.
Post reply on HN