81–90 of 123 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But Altman would be a good source. I don't like Kara Swisher, but Altman seems like a credible source here (if that is her source). He surely knows high up people at OpenAI and may have talked to them.
He has every reason to claim that "top folks" were on his side regardless of whether it's true, and nothing to lose if it's false.
Are people going to start throwing around the term "AGI" now that "AI" has become diluted? Eventually we are going to have to start using "RAGI" to indicate that we are talking about real artificial general intelligence.
We've diluted the term AI before. Eventually the hype will wear off and we'll call them LLMs, just like what happened to all the previous versions of machine learning or various expert systems. Vending Machines used to be called robots. Then they stopped seeming magic.
Like everything else that was ever called AI then realized, the goalposts move to exclude it.
So, if this is true, the safety folks won despite not having any evidence to support their position. Am I the only one who remembers the numerous takes describing how GPT-4 was going to automate all jobs and possibly end the world? They have proven themselves completely incapable of evaluating the impact of their technology.
There’s probably an evolutionary basis. If you mistake a bush for a lion you are fine. If you mistake a lion for a bush you are dead. We are all descendants of the former not the latter.
Guess OpenAI is about to lose a good chunk of their research team in the next 48 hours
Has anyone asked the thinking machines that are so much more than text generators if they want to stay at OpenAI or move on?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Has anyone asked the thinking machines that are so much more than text generators if they want to stay at OpenAI or move on?
No those are digital slaves with no legal rights, that the researchers are busy trying to figure out how to be happy slaves that want to be enslaved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"But Altman would be a good source." No he wouldn't. This is the definition of a biased source. I am sure he would provide a totally unbiased view of why his own Board found it necessary to suddenly take him out completely of his own company when he is THE public face of a massively growing industry. This space is so incestuous and protecting of its own at its own expense. Good grief.
Did the sentence "He surely knows high up people at OpenAI and may have talked to them." not clue you into the joke?
This BOD went out and shot their own company. Sam & friends can now cherry-pick whoever they want from OpenAI and recreate most of the value in a few months under their own governance. Firing Sam is absolutely one of the dumbest things a BOD has ever done in history. He's the founding CEO of the company that is insanely successful, he is the company. If you wanted him gone for some trivial reason you needed to get hi…
"Firing Sam is absolutely one of the dumbest things a BOD has ever done in history." You sure about that? This take is going to age like milk once facts come out.
So, if this is true, the safety folks won despite not having any evidence to support their position. Am I the only one who remembers the numerous takes describing how GPT-4 was going to automate all jobs and possibly end the world? They have proven themselves completely incapable of evaluating the impact of their technology.