861–870 of 946 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ChatGPT is not AGI, but it is AI. The thing that makes AI lose all meaning is the constantly moving goal posts. There's been tons of very successful AI research over the past decades. None of it is AGI, but it's still very successful AI.
> ChatGPT is not AGI, but it is AI. I absolutely disagree in the strongest terms possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which would have had been a tradeoff too. More time to market, fewer people on each project, slowed down by cross platform code.
They would have just forked the code and maybe merged some changes back and forth, no real need for cross-platform code.
Neither of these reasons have anything to do with a lofty ideology regarding the safety of AGI or OpenAI’s nonprofit status. Rather it seems they are micromanaging personnel decisions. Also notice that Ilya Sutskever is presenting the reasons for the firing as just something he was told. This is important, because people were siding with the board under the understanding this firing was led by the head research scien…
It could be a more primal explanation. I think OpenAi doesn’t want to effectively be a R&D arm of Microsoft. The ChatGPT mobile app is an unpolished and unrefined. There’s little to no product design there, so I totally see how it’s fair criticism to call out premature feature milling (especially when it’s clear it’s for Microsoft). I’m imagining Sam being Microsoft’s Trojan horse, and that’s just not gonna fly. If a…
I consider this a feature.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is your rule of thumb based on? In, for example, the Netherlands the richest people pay less tax [0]. Do you think this is not the case in many other countries? > They are also, for [..] they employ, paying tax Is that a benefit of having rich people? If companies were employee-owned that tax would still be paid. [0]: https://www.iamexpat.nl/expat-info/dutch-expat-news/wealthie...
> What is your rule of thumb based on? E.g. [0] > In, for example, the Netherlands the richest people pay less tax [0]. Do you think this is not the case in many other countries? That's a non sequitur from the previous point. However, on the "who pays taxes?" point, that article is careful to only talk about income tax in absolute terms, and indirect taxes in relative terms. It doesn't appear to be trying to make an…
Well it's not a matter of the people existing, it's whether they are rich or not. They can exist without the money.
Anyway, if you don't think it matters if they are of benefit, then why did you bring up the fact that they pay taxes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess it depends on whether any of them actually got the assignment. One way to interpret it is that nobody is taking that assignment seriously. So depending on what that assignment is and how important that particular assignment is to the board, then it may in fact be a big deal.
Does a board give an assignment to the CEO or teams? If the case is that the will of the board is not being fulfilled, then the reasoning is simple. The CEO was told to do something and he has not done it. So, he is ousted. Plain and simple. This talk about projects given to two teams and what not is nonsense. The board should care if its work is done, not how the work is done. That is the job of the CEO.
And I agree the board should care if the work is actually done and that's where if the CEO seems to be bluffing that the work is being done or blowing it off and humoring them then it becomes a problem about the CEO not respecting the board's direction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wealth is control of resources, which is power. The way to change power is through force that's why you need swords to remove kings and to remove stacks of gold, see assinations, war, the U.S..
You need swords to remove kings because they combined power and economy. All potential tyrannies do so: monarchy, socialism, fascism, etc. That's why separating power into the state and economy into the market gets good results.
>separating power into the state and economy into the market gets good results.
How do you think this would be done? How do you remove power from money? Money is literally the ability to convert numbers into labor, land, food,
"But several people told CNN contributor Kara Swisher that a key factor in the decision was a disagreement about how quickly to bring AI to the market. Altman, sources say, wanted to move quickly, while the OpenAI board wanted to move more cautiously."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are under the impression that OpenAI "just failing to scale efficient mining of that gold", but it was one of the fastest growing B2C companies ever, failing to scale to paid demand, not failing to scale to monetization. I admire the execution and operationalization, where you see a failure. What am I missing?
If the leadership of a hyper scaling company falls apart like what we've seen with OpenAI, is that not failure to execute and operationalize? We'll see what comes of this over the coming weeks. Will the service see more downtime? Will the company implode completely?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I always wonder why people suddenly lose “trust” in a brand, as if it was a concrete of internal relationships Brand is just shorthand for trust in their future, managed by a credible team. I.e. relationships . A lot of OpenAI’s reputation is/was Sam Altman’s reputation. Altman has proven himself to be exceptional, part of which is (of course) being able to be seen as exceptional. Just the latter has tremendous rel…
The AI community isn't large, as in the brainpower available. I am talking about the PhD pool. If this pool isn't growing fast enough, no matter what cash or hardware is thrown on the table, then the hype Sam Altman generates can be a pointless distraction and waste of everyones time. But its all par for the course when Hypsters captain the ship and PhDs with zero biz sense try to wrest power.
You might need to include more dimensions if you really want to model the actual impact and respect that Sam Altman has among knowledgeable investors, high talent developers, and ruthless corporations.
It’s so easy to just make things simple, like “it’s all hype”. But you lose touch with reality when you do that.
Also, lots of hype is productive: clear vision, marketing, wowing millions of customers with an actual accessible product of a kind/quality that never existed before and is reshaping the strategies and product plans of the most successful companies in the world.
—
Really, resist narrow reductionisms.
I feel like that would be a great addition HN guidelines.
The “it’s all/mostly hype”, “it’s all/mistly bullshit”, “Its not really anything new”, … These comments rarely come with any accuracy or insight.
Apologies to the HN-er I am replying to. I am sure we have all done this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think ChatGPT has created some harms: - It's been used unethically for psychological and medical purposes (with insufficient testing and insufficient consent, and possible psychological and physical harms). - It has been used to distort educational attainment and undermine the current basis of some credentials as a result. - It has been used to create synthetic content that has been released unmarked into the inter…
> It has devalued and replaced the work of people who relied on that work for their incomes. Many people (myself included) would argue that is true for almost all technological progress and adds more value to society as a whole than it takes away. Obviously the comparisons are not exact, and have been made many times already, but you can just pick one of countless examples that devalued certain workers wages but made…
- because it's happened before doesn't make it ok (especially for the folks who it happens to)
- many more people may be better off, and it may be a social good eventually, but this is not for sure
- there is no mechanism for any redistribution or support for the people suddenly and unexpectedly displaced.