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

OpenAI API

beta.openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 165 posts

Re: OpenAI API

#81

Post by mrfusion »

eggsnbacon1 wrote: post #65
gobengo wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like a similar organizational structure as Mozilla Foundation + Mozilla Corporation.

They redefined the org from non-profit to "capped profit", whatever that means. They're directly selling GPT 3 even though they originally said they wouldn't release it because of potential bad uses. They paid MS a ton of money for hardware and got a huge equity investment from them. And lets be honest here, the easiest and most straight-forward use of GPT3 is generating spam and low quality clickbait. Its the only u…

Couldn’t you generate fake support for issues on social media with this?

Re: OpenAI API

#82

Post by dmvaldman »

azinman2 wrote: post #78
dmvaldman wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zero shot and few-shot learning in GPT-3 and lack of significant diminishing returns in scaling text models. Zero-shot learning is equivalent to saying "i'm just going to ask the model something that it was not trained to do"

And how do we get from zero shot to AGI? You're making gigantic leaps here.

what is the difference between zero-shot learning in text and AGI? not saying there isn't one, but can you state what it is?you can express any intent in text (unlike other media). to solve zero-shot in text is equivalent to the model responding to all intents.

many people have different definitions for AGI though. for me it clicked when i realized that text has this universality property of capturing any intent.

Re: OpenAI API

#83

Post by seph-reed »

etaioinshrdlu wrote: post #64
eggsnbacon1 wrote: post #47

OpenAI started as a non-profit, went for-profit. Still owned by the big players.... Something isn't right. Is OpenAI just a submarine so the tech giants can do unethical research without taking blame??? Its textbook misdirection, nonprofit and "Open" in the name, hero-esque mission statement. How do you make the mental leap from "we're non-profit and we won't release things too dangerous" to "JK we're for-profit and…

I think it's simply because OpenAI is fundamentally created and controlled by venture capitalists , and the tech they created turned out to be just too juicy an opportunity to not monetize. I can’t say I blame them, when they realize they are sitting on the technological equivalent of a mountain of gold. What would you do?

> sitting on the technological equivalent of a mountain of gold. What would you do?

Greed is not justified. I get that people are weak, selfish, they can't stop themselves. Some feel sympathy because they've been weak too. "Maybe it's justified," they like to think. "Everybody lies." But seriously, those who care so much about money and power they can't do things in a civilized respectable way: they are not yet an adult and must be hard barred from the upper tiers of capitalism until they learn that life does not revolve around them.

I blame them for being shitty, and blame everyone around them for letting it happen.

Re: OpenAI API

#84

Post by markshepard »

eggsnbacon1 wrote: post #47

OpenAI started as a non-profit, went for-profit. Still owned by the big players.... Something isn't right. Is OpenAI just a submarine so the tech giants can do unethical research without taking blame??? Its textbook misdirection, nonprofit and "Open" in the name, hero-esque mission statement. How do you make the mental leap from "we're non-profit and we won't release things too dangerous" to "JK we're for-profit and…

Well said. I think they need to change the name. It is misleading on many levels.

Re: OpenAI API

#85

Post by solinent »

eggsnbacon1 wrote: post #47

OpenAI started as a non-profit, went for-profit. Still owned by the big players.... Something isn't right. Is OpenAI just a submarine so the tech giants can do unethical research without taking blame??? Its textbook misdirection, nonprofit and "Open" in the name, hero-esque mission statement. How do you make the mental leap from "we're non-profit and we won't release things too dangerous" to "JK we're for-profit and…

Based on my experience with non-profits, they are just like regular corps except they don't pay taxes, and they're always attached to a for-profit interest. The real community organizations don't tend to incorporate, as then you have to hire people to manage the corp or do it yourself.

This OpenAI work is almost certainly a way for these bigger corps to collude. Proving that would be impossible, though.

Re: OpenAI API

#86

Post by madcowd »

azinman2 wrote: post #60
wildermuthn wrote: post #36

In one of their examples, they note “They saw ratings hover around 60% with their original, in-house tech — this improved by 7-8% with GPT-2 — and is now in the 80-90% range with the API.” Bloomberg reports the API is based on GPT-3 and “other language models”. If that’s true, this is a big deal, and it epitomizes OpenAI’s namesake. The largest NLP models require vast corporate resources to train, let alone put into…

It's only Open™️ if I can run the API on my own machines.

If big LM's are the future then even if you had the model you couldn't run it on your own machines without having a DGX or two laying around.

Re: OpenAI API

#87

Post by dang »

m_ke wrote: post #4

I guess Sama plans on manufacturing growth metrics by forcing YC companies to pretend that they're using this. Generic machine learning APIs are a shitty business to get into unless you plan on hiring a huge sales team and selling to dinosaurs or doing a ton of custom consulting work, which doesn't scale the way VCs like it to. Anybody who will have enough know how to use their API properly can jus grab an open sourc…

> I guess Sama plans on manufacturing growth metrics by forcing YC companies to pretend that they're using this.

That's wrong in almost too many ways to list. Sam left YC over a year ago, nor would he do such a thing. Nor does YC have that kind of power over companies, nor would it use it that way if it did. That would be wrong and also dumb.

Re: OpenAI API

#88

Post by Barrin92 »

dmvaldman wrote: post #79
Barrin92 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there's zero understanding in any of this. This is still just superficial text parsing essentially. Show me progress on Winograd schema and I'd be impressed. It hasn't got anything to do with AGI, this is application of ML to very traditional NLP problems.

i think you are assuming that what is happening under the hood is that a human-inputted sentence is being parsed into a grammar. it is not.

I know that it isn't. That's part of the problem. There is no attempt to generate some sort of structure that can be interpreted semantically and reasoned about by the model. The model just operates on the input superficially and statistically. That's why there has been virtually no progress on trivial tasks such as answering:

"I took the water bottle out of the backpack so that it would be [lighter/handy]"

What is lighter and what is handy? No amount of stochastic language manipulation gets you the answer, you need to understand some rudimentary physics to answer the question, and as a precondition, you need a grammar or ontology.

Re: OpenAI API

#89

Post by azinman2 »

dmvaldman wrote: post #82
azinman2 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how do we get from zero shot to AGI? You're making gigantic leaps here.

what is the difference between zero-shot learning in text and AGI? not saying there isn't one, but can you state what it is?you can express any intent in text (unlike other media). to solve zero-shot in text is equivalent to the model responding to all intents. many people have different definitions for AGI though. for me it clicked when i realized that text has this universality property of capturing any intent.

Zero-shot learning is a way of essentially building classifiers. There's no reasoning, there's no planning, there's no commonsense knowledge (not in a comprehensive, deep way that we would look for it call it that), and there's no integration of these skills to solve common goals. You can't take GPT and say ok turn that into a robot that can clean my house, take care of my kids, cook dinner, and then be a great dinner guest companion.

If you really probe at GPT, you'll see anything that goes beyond an initial sentence or two really starts to show how it's purely superficial in terms of understanding & intelligence; it's basically a really amazing version of Searle's Chinese room argument.

Re: OpenAI API

#90

Post by codekilla »

markshepard wrote: post #84
eggsnbacon1 wrote: post #47

OpenAI started as a non-profit, went for-profit. Still owned by the big players.... Something isn't right. Is OpenAI just a submarine so the tech giants can do unethical research without taking blame??? Its textbook misdirection, nonprofit and "Open" in the name, hero-esque mission statement. How do you make the mental leap from "we're non-profit and we won't release things too dangerous" to "JK we're for-profit and…

Well said. I think they need to change the name. It is misleading on many levels.

A reshuffling might give: NopeAI or PeonAI
Post reply on HN