801–810 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I have equity in a company and I care about its value, I’m not going to say anything to tank its value. If I sell my equity later on, and then disparage the company, what can OpenAI hope to do to me?
From what other people have commented, you don't get equity. You get a profit sharing plan. You're chained to them for life. There is no divestiture.
For a company that is actively pursuing AGI (and probably the #1 contender to get there), this type of behaviour is extremely concerning. There’s a very real/significant risk that AGI either literally destroys the human race, or makes life much shittier for most humans by making most of us obsolete. These risks are precisely why OpenAI was founded as a very open company with a charter that would firmly put the needs…
> or makes life much shittier for most humans by making most of us obsolete I'm not sure this is true. If all the things people are doing are done so much more cheaply they're almost free, that would be good for us, as we're also the buyers as well as the workers. However, I also doubt the premise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> There’s a very real/significant risk that AGI either literally destroys the human race > If this were true, intelligent people would have taken over society by now The premise you're replying to - one I don't think I agree with - is that a true AGI would be so much smarter, so much more powerful, that it wouldn't be accurate to describe it as "more smart". You're probably smarter than a guy who recreationally huff…
>You're probably smarter than a guy who recreationally huffs spraypaint, but you're still within the same class as intelligence. Both of you are so much more advanced than a cat, or a beetle, or a protozoan that it doesn't even make sense to make any sort of comparison. This is pseudoscientific nonsense. We have the very rigorous field of complexity theory to show how much improvement in solving various problems can…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> or makes life much shittier for most humans by making most of us obsolete I'm not sure this is true. If all the things people are doing are done so much more cheaply they're almost free, that would be good for us, as we're also the buyers as well as the workers. However, I also doubt the premise.
Why would you need buyers if AI can create anything you desire?
It probably would be better to switch the link from the X post to the Vox article [0]. From the article: “““ It turns out there’s a very clear reason for [why no one who had once worked at OpenAI was talking]. I have seen the extremely restrictive off-boarding agreement that contains nondisclosure and non-disparagement provisions former OpenAI employees are subject to. It forbids them, for the rest of their lives, fr…
>>contains nondisclosure and non-disparagement provisions former OpenAI employees are subject to. It forbids them, for the rest of their lives, from criticizing their former employer. Even acknowledging that the NDA exists is a violation of it. Perfect! So it's so incredibly overreaching that any judge in California would deem the entire NDA unenforceable.. Either that or, in your effort to overstate a point, you exa…
For a company that is actively pursuing AGI (and probably the #1 contender to get there), this type of behaviour is extremely concerning. There’s a very real/significant risk that AGI either literally destroys the human race, or makes life much shittier for most humans by making most of us obsolete. These risks are precisely why OpenAI was founded as a very open company with a charter that would firmly put the needs…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The New Yorker piece is pretty terrifying and manages to be so while bending over backwards to present both sides of not maybe even suck up to SV a bit. Certainly no one forced Altman to say on the record that Ice Nine in the water glass was what he had planned for anyone who crossed him, and no one forced pg to say, likewise on the record that “Sam’s real talent is becoming powerful” or something to that effect. It…
Holy shit I thought he was just good at networking, but it sounds like we have a psychopath in charge of the AI revolution. Fantastic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An efficient market where externalities are priced in. We do not have that. The cost of energy is mis-priced, although we are limping our way to fixing that. Paying the likely fair cost for our goods, will probably kill a lot of current industries - while others which are currently viable, will become viable.
You are dodging the question down another layer. Who gets decide what the real impact price of energy is? That is not easily defined and well debated.
Markets are our super computers. Human behavior is the empirical evidence of the choices people will make Given specific incentives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> or makes life much shittier for most humans by making most of us obsolete I'm not sure this is true. If all the things people are doing are done so much more cheaply they're almost free, that would be good for us, as we're also the buyers as well as the workers. However, I also doubt the premise.
> If all the things people are doing are done so much more cheaply they're almost free, that would be good for us ... Doesn't this tend to become "they're almost free to produce " with the actual pricing for end consumers not becoming cheaper? From the point of view of the sellers just expanding their margins instead.
Over the last ~ 50 years, worker productivity is up ~250%[0], profits (within the S&P 500) are up ~100%[1] and real personal (not household) income is up 150%[2].
It should go without saying that a large part of the rise in profits is attributable to the rise of tech. It shouldn't surprise anyone that margins are higher on digital widgets than physical ones!
Regardless, expanding margins is only attractive up to a certain point. The higher your margins, the more attractive your market becomes to would-be competitors.
[0] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OPHNFB [1] https://dqydj.com/sp-500-profit-margin/ [2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That vision, if it was ever there, died before ChatGPT was released. It was just a hiring scheme to attract researchers. pg calls sama ‘naughty’. I call him ‘dangerous’.
I'm still finding it difficult to understand how their move away from the non-profit mission was legal. Initially, you assert that you are a mission-driven non-profit, a claim that attracts talent, capital, press, partners, and users. Then, you make a complete turnaround and transform into a for-profit enterprise. Why this isn't considered fraud is beyond me.