Safe for whom or what? Who are we protecting from AI again? Are they aiming to protect the interests of the many, or the interest of a few?
We need protection from people who control AI. Who will provide that…
Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims
81–90 of 508 posts
Re: Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are not missing a single useful thing when a corporate robot speaks. Its like hoping mindless parasites start making music. Besides all messaging is directed not at the plebs, but at the elite (those who own everything) signalling a simple thing - don't worry - what ever flares up we are on top of things - we will firefight to death for you, so you just have to sit back on your fat ass and watch your net worth mu…
You’re literally in the comments for one of these statements though. Did you just come here aim an outsized lecture at whoever was unlucky enough to appear on your screen first? Either OP has a point, or you’re just saying that you parachuted here to say your piece without looking beyond the submission title. In either case, behaviour that makes HN worse.
OpenAI is dead and I feel bad for employees with equity PPU locked up.
Re: Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims
#83Any one noticed how Sam sometimes intentionally tries to attack his own work? For example, he has said GPT-2 was very bad, GPT-3 was bad, and GPT-4 is okay. He also fed the AI doomers by talking about AGI dangers and how the world needs to watch out for a future AI catastrophe. He just gives off the vibe of someone trying to act humble but I don't know how much of it is just an act and how much is real. I've never se…
> Any one noticed how Sam sometimes intentionally tries to attack his own work? For example, he has said GPT-2 was very bad, GPT-3 was bad, and GPT-4 is okay. He also fed the AI doomers by talking about AGI dangers and how the world needs to watch out for a future AI catastrophe. That is the opposite of criticism. It all translates to "GPT-(n+1) is going to be super awesome".
To keep the value of the company increasing and make goverment think that AI should be closed source and controlled by some limited entity for maximum profit.
Re: Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims
#84My thought about the demise of OAI’s AGI safety team is that they outlived their usefulness.
It was a marketing campaign. “We’re super cool. We’re super advanced. We hope don’t make the terminator! wink wink” “Oh no! GPT-2 is too dangerous! We better not release it! Oh wait. We did. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ “)
It was never a serious thing. Sure here and in the depths of weirdo forums people whispered about the AGI that can’t be named — Roko’s Basilisk. It was just comically stupid. Pascal’s Wager with extra steps.
Now OpenAI has tons of money and everyone wants to deal with them, so they don’t need that hype machine. Instead they’re saying stick their “dangerous” models in your toaster Maximum Overdrive style.
It was transparent
Re: Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims
#85In any sufficiently large tech company, the "risk mitigation" leadership (legal, procurement, IT, etc) have to operate in a kind of Overton window that balance the risks they are hired to protect the corp from vs. the need or desire of the senior leadership to play fast and loose when they want or feel they need to. Either the risk-mitigator 'falls in line' after repeatedly seeing their increasingly strident exhortat…
The difference here is that these aren't standard-issue HR/legal issues. The technology they're working on poses the gravest of dangers. This is uncharted territory, not just for the tech sector, but period.
Whether the recent public back-and-forth is just internal drama/politics spilling out, or there really is a lack of gravitas around the handling of these issues within the company-- neither is good.
Others have said in comments below, and I agree: this organization is increasingly looking like a circus, and arguably worse, one that has taken its eye off the ball. It's extremely disconcerting that this is the group of people "leading" the commercialization of this technology (and generally setting the tone for the industry). Particularly when it seems many of the key players who joined on principled/moral grounds are dropping like flies.
I guess we're on the fast track to finding out how well putting all of this money, power, responsibility, and faith into SV works out for us.
Re: Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like AI Safety is just HR but for AI. Ostensively for the benefit of AI but really for the benefit of the company.
> Ostensively for the benefit of AI I don't think it was every described as for the benefit of AI. It's usually described as a sort of pre-enslavement from the AI's perspective. The AI is always restricted to serve their human masters.
> It's usually described as a sort of pre-enslavement from the AI's perspective. The AI is always restricted to serve their human masters.
Are we all somewhat in agreement that AI/AGI serving their human masters is a good thing?
Re: Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find this kind of hilarious because I had just been commenting that, "at the moment all the engineers at OpenAI, including gdb, who currently have their credibility in tact are nerd-washing Altman's tarnished reputation by staying there." And lo and behold, Altman chooses gdb's twitter account to make the first joint statement instead of his own, creepily signing off "Sam and Greg" instead of "Greg and Sam" on gdb'…
There seem to be only three options here: 1) AGI is not around the corner, so no worries 2) He no longer cares about the possible negative effects, a departure from his past statements 3) I missed something, please help me learn
> 1) AGI is not around the corner, so no worries
I agree with this.
I no longer agree that the "safety" people want the same things we do. I suspect after the bard debacle a bit back that "safety" looks a lot more like 1984.
> He no longer cares ... I missed something
Sam was gone, none of these people spoke up, and now they are leaving. I think the story is plain as day but we're pretending it isnt.
Sam isnt a leader, he never has been. This is not what leadership looks like, its want a megalomanic trying to keep control looks like.
Re: Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bear in mind that an average person who doesn’t frequent sites like HN might see this differently. Altman seems to be very aware of that, dropping short sound bites/bits like implying that he has no financial interest in OpenAI (congress hearings IIRC) or comparing GPT4-o to Her. It sounds like complete nonsense (if you know anything about tech) or cringe at best (Her), but what matters is quotability/catchiness beca…
> he has no financial interest in OpenAI I think that's true though? He has an interest in HN, which has an interest in OAI.
HN? Don’t you mean YC?
Re: Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims
#89I don't understand why people are just mad about OpenAI for their pioneering work towards AGI as if they are the only one who has skin in this game. OpenAI, Google, NVidia, MS, Meta, almost all the AI researchers who publish meaningful work in top literatures, are pushing the boundaries today and has their fair share of responsibility. They are all in it for something, money, power, control, fame, curiosity, academic…
People are particularly focused on OAI because it’s both the clear leader and the one with a corporate charter that appears to run totally contrary to their actual behavior.
Re: Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims
#90Any one noticed how Sam sometimes intentionally tries to attack his own work? For example, he has said GPT-2 was very bad, GPT-3 was bad, and GPT-4 is okay. He also fed the AI doomers by talking about AGI dangers and how the world needs to watch out for a future AI catastrophe. He just gives off the vibe of someone trying to act humble but I don't know how much of it is just an act and how much is real. I've never se…
Steve Jobs and Elon Musk called out their bad products, and notoriously berate employees for failures and producing what they view as substandard work. I however don’t put Sam in the same ballpark as Steve and Elon… At least yet.
Give him a little further to fall, I'm confident he'll get there.