4 ms·

There seems a lot of negative perception of the guy here, and OpenAI definitely deserve criticism for some stuff (so as the CEO, so does he), but - even if it w

There seems a lot of negative perception of the guy here, and OpenAI definitely deserve criticism for some stuff (so as the CEO, so does he), but - even if it was built on the work of others, and with the obvious caution about what may come next - he and they deserve immense respect and credit for bringing in this new AI age. They did it. Nobody else.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
anileated 4y ago
I for one have nothing against Sam as a person (not knowing him well enough), but I question the sentiment that he and the company deserve respect for what they’re doing—much less by default, for some self-evident reason that doesn’t even require explanation. Do people mean it in a sarcastic sense—and if not, why does OpenAI deserve respect again? — Because it is non-trivial (in the same way, say, even Lenin deserves respect by default—even if the outcome has been disastrous, the person sure had some determination and done humongous work)? — Because this particular tech is somehow inherently a good thing? (Why?) — Because they rolled it out in a very ethical way with utmost consideration for the original authors (at least those still living), respecting their authorship rights and giving them the ability to opt in or at least opt out? — Because they are the ones who happen to have 10 billions of Microsoft money to play with? — Because they don’t try to monetize a brave new world in which humans are verified based on inalienable personal traits like iris scans, which they themselves are bringing about[0]? This is me stating why they shouldn’t have respect by default and counting to get a constructive counter-argument in return. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35398829 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35398829
- cvalka 4y ago
  >Because this tech is somehow >inherently a good thing Without technology humans are just unworthy bugs.
  - anileated 4y ago
    It is generally accepted that some applications of technology are good and some are not, or at least not self-evidently so (weapons of mass destruction, environmentally disastrous things like PFAS, packaging every single product into barely-recyclable-once plastics, gene editing humans, addictive social media/FB/TikTok, etc.) Is this particular application of technology good, and even self-evidently so?
    - cvalka 4y ago
      No, it's not generally accepted. F.e. weapons of mass destruction i.e. nuclear weapons saved hundreds of millions of lives. Your lack of imagination is not an argument against technology.
- madmask 4y ago
  People in tech often have the axiom that tech progress is good. I mostly agree but we should keep in mind all the power hungry, manipulative, crazy monkey brains that will get their hands on it and cause mayhem at unheard of scales.
BarryMilo 4y ago
The expression "on the shoulders of giants" has never been so relevant.
- mellosouls 4y ago
  Ha! To be fair though, Isaac Newton is not a bad person to be implicitly compared to. :)
nice_byte 4y ago
> he and they deserve immense respect and credit for bringing in this new AI age. Why? Who asked for it? I think that if openAI's breakthroughs never happened, we would not be any worse off (actually, we'd probably be better off).
- Nasrudith 4y ago
  You are basicallt demanding that parents obtain prior permission from their offspring for them being born before conception. That isn't just unreasonable but impossible. When has it ever worked that way with any technology? That they would just get every last interest to agree on what technology would do and its applications? Besides, a world where prior permission must be asked before doing anything which may cause a change is better known as a tyranny.
  - nice_byte 4y ago
    > You are basicallt demanding that parents obtain prior permission from their offspring for them being born before conception. Are you sure you replied to the right thread?
sanderjd 4y ago
Personally, I think it seems like they were only able to achieve what they have due to transparently published research, and are now pulling up the ladder behind them by refusing to publish in the same fashion. I don't think that deserves immense respect.
qudat 4y ago
It seems like the real breakthrough happened at google with “All you need is attention”
- HarHarVeryFunny 4y ago
  Perhaps, although it was never intended/expected to be a path to AI/AGI. It was just designed as a more efficient seq-2-seq model. An accidental breakthrough wrt AGI you might say!
  - BarryMilo 4y ago
    It's clear that GPT4 still isn't AGI or close to it. But the same is true for humans, our language neurons aren't the only essential parts of our intelligence. So what else is there? Well, it just needs to want things, maybe have needs, probably perceptions (that one's easy). Automomy? At some point, with all these systems interacting, sentience may emerge so that it too can participate debates whether it's an AGI!
rafark 4y ago
Completely agreed. Plus, people seem to hate every “celebrity” these days. Name one ceo or founder who is not hated.
- bagacrap 4y ago
  Larry Page Lisa Su Satya Nadella (well, I consider him a conman but I seem to be in the minority)
jjulius 4y ago
I can't quite put my finger on why, but I've always found it odd to just give blanket "respect and credit" just because someone/thing "did it first". Yeah a lot of times it's justified, but I mean, if you have to put caveats on it like ya did... I dunno.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

anileated 4y ago

I for one have nothing against Sam as a person (not knowing him well enough), but I question the sentiment that he and the company deserve respect for what they’re doing—much less by default, for some self-evident reason that doesn’t even require explanation. Do people mean it in a sarcastic sense—and if not, why does OpenAI deserve respect again? — Because it is non-trivial (in the same way, say, even Lenin deserves respect by default—even if the outcome has been disastrous, the person sure had some determination and done humongous work)? — Because this particular tech is somehow inherently a good thing? (Why?) — Because they rolled it out in a very ethical way with utmost consideration for the original authors (at least those still living), respecting their authorship rights and giving them the ability to opt in or at least opt out? — Because they are the ones who happen to have 10 billions of Microsoft money to play with? — Because they don’t try to monetize a brave new world in which humans are verified based on inalienable personal traits like iris scans, which they themselves are bringing about[0]? This is me stating why they shouldn’t have respect by default and counting to get a constructive counter-argument in return. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35398829 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35398829

cvalka 4y ago
>Because this tech is somehow >inherently a good thing Without technology humans are just unworthy bugs.
- anileated 4y ago
  It is generally accepted that some applications of technology are good and some are not, or at least not self-evidently so (weapons of mass destruction, environmentally disastrous things like PFAS, packaging every single product into barely-recyclable-once plastics, gene editing humans, addictive social media/FB/TikTok, etc.) Is this particular application of technology good, and even self-evidently so?
  - cvalka 4y ago
    No, it's not generally accepted. F.e. weapons of mass destruction i.e. nuclear weapons saved hundreds of millions of lives. Your lack of imagination is not an argument against technology.
madmask 4y ago
People in tech often have the axiom that tech progress is good. I mostly agree but we should keep in mind all the power hungry, manipulative, crazy monkey brains that will get their hands on it and cause mayhem at unheard of scales.

BarryMilo 4y ago

The expression "on the shoulders of giants" has never been so relevant.

mellosouls 4y ago
Ha! To be fair though, Isaac Newton is not a bad person to be implicitly compared to. :)

nice_byte 4y ago

> he and they deserve immense respect and credit for bringing in this new AI age. Why? Who asked for it? I think that if openAI's breakthroughs never happened, we would not be any worse off (actually, we'd probably be better off).

Nasrudith 4y ago
You are basicallt demanding that parents obtain prior permission from their offspring for them being born before conception. That isn't just unreasonable but impossible. When has it ever worked that way with any technology? That they would just get every last interest to agree on what technology would do and its applications? Besides, a world where prior permission must be asked before doing anything which may cause a change is better known as a tyranny.
- nice_byte 4y ago
  > You are basicallt demanding that parents obtain prior permission from their offspring for them being born before conception. Are you sure you replied to the right thread?

sanderjd 4y ago

Personally, I think it seems like they were only able to achieve what they have due to transparently published research, and are now pulling up the ladder behind them by refusing to publish in the same fashion. I don't think that deserves immense respect.

qudat 4y ago

It seems like the real breakthrough happened at google with “All you need is attention”

HarHarVeryFunny 4y ago
Perhaps, although it was never intended/expected to be a path to AI/AGI. It was just designed as a more efficient seq-2-seq model. An accidental breakthrough wrt AGI you might say!
- BarryMilo 4y ago
  It's clear that GPT4 still isn't AGI or close to it. But the same is true for humans, our language neurons aren't the only essential parts of our intelligence. So what else is there? Well, it just needs to want things, maybe have needs, probably perceptions (that one's easy). Automomy? At some point, with all these systems interacting, sentience may emerge so that it too can participate debates whether it's an AGI!

rafark 4y ago

Completely agreed. Plus, people seem to hate every “celebrity” these days. Name one ceo or founder who is not hated.

bagacrap 4y ago
Larry Page Lisa Su Satya Nadella (well, I consider him a conman but I seem to be in the minority)

jjulius 4y ago

I can't quite put my finger on why, but I've always found it odd to just give blanket "respect and credit" just because someone/thing "did it first". Yeah a lot of times it's justified, but I mean, if you have to put caveats on it like ya did... I dunno.