7 ms·
As a theorist in AI, the premise is funny but also really sad. And yet it is a very pervasive premise in the field. OpenAI is not doing science. They are build
by bo1024 4y ago
As a theorist in AI, the premise is funny but also really sad. And yet it is a very pervasive premise in the field.
OpenAI is not doing science. They are building a big shiny thing, showing it off, keeping it closed, and making money off of it. That is not part of the scientific process.
It is as if, every time SpaceX launched a rocket a little bit higher, every aerospace department ooh'd and aah'd and threw up their hands: "we don't have the resources to build a bigger rocket; how can we do science?"
Unfortunately, the research field of AI is diseased: it places way too much value on showing off big shiny things above progress in scientific understanding. But there is a ton of progress available to be made by small teams on small budgets. There is so much we don't understand about neural networks alone, even small ones.
- gitfan86 4y agoOpenAI wasn't created to "Do Science". It was created to give humanity a better chance at navigating the singularity.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- agravier 4y agoOoooh and here I was, an ignoramus thinking OpenAI was mostly trying to find a way to milk the generative models cash cow. Silly, cynical me, I should have known better.
- gitfan86 4y agoDon't worry about it. VERY few people (Sama, Elon, Me) saw this coming and see what is coming next.
- TeMPOraL 4y agoEliezer and his disciples are looking at you and your friends, and he is not impressed.
- johnaspden 4y agoAm Eliezer disciple, can confirm.
- gitfan86 4y agoThis day was inevitable once humans first told each other about their tools
- revolvingocelot 4y agoOpenAI was created to trade (literally) on the "open" in their name. Any advancements in actual technology are likely secondary to the billion fucking dollar investment (which Altman has suggested might not be enough!). It's certain they aren't here to do "science", which IME involves showing your work to others.
- KptMarchewa 4y ago10 billion.
- z3c0 4y ago13 billion, and a total valuation of 29b, which could be leveraged as well. https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/etfs-to-gain-on-microsofts-%2413-billion-bet-on-openai https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/etfs-to-gain-on-microsofts-%...
- martopix 4y ago> OpenAI wasn't created to "Do Science". That's exactly OP's point
- TeMPOraL 4y agoOpenAI was created to solve a problem that involves doing science, so... at the moment, it absolutely does do science.
- hyperbovine 4y agoConversely: if you’re a depressed AI researcher: come on over to science, the water’s fine! We have centuries worth of open problems that are not going to be solved by ChatGPT, and need more smart technical people than we can hire.
- api 4y agoThe problem is usually that science can't pay even a fraction of what you can make in industry right now, and meanwhile the good science jobs are often in high cost of living places.
- SuoDuanDao 4y agoI really think we need a UBI so that people who want to can afford to do science how many drug addicts less motivated to quit is a scientist less motivated to maximize clicks worth? It's gotta be more than zero.
- nradov 4y agoNo thanks. I'm not willing to pay higher taxes just so that we can have a few more academics doing low-value AI research.
- SuoDuanDao 4y agowhat about a few more Charles Darwins doing high-value research on whatever interests them?
- CuriouslyC 4y agoWhat an opportunity! I get to spend most of my time writing grant proposals, compete with 30 other associate professors for 1 tenure track job, then when I get tired of that I can switch to a marginal wage industry job because AI researchers are the only scientists that get good compensation as a group, and the 28 other people who didn't get that tenure position are probably also trying to do the same thing (thus depressing wages)? Sign me up /s.
- foooorsyth 4y ago>That is not part of the scientific process What? OpenAI is absolutely conducting science amongst themselves. They are certainly engaging in the hypothesis -> test -> result scientific method, which is science in its purest form. Sharing the secret sauce is what is done or expected in academia, but that doesn’t mean that OpenAI isn’t conducting science behind their own walls. You’re conflating institutional academia with the scientific method. If I go home and test the boiling point of water in my garage and record the result privately without publishing a paper, am I not conducting science? What nonsense.
- z3c0 4y ago"Science" is not solely the scientific method - it's the democratization of your methodology to enable the replication of the results, towards the goal of determining their soundness.
- Invictus0 4y agoSo if the government does science research that is classified, that doesn't count as science because it's not publicly shared?
- z3c0 4y agoYes, that is exactly the point. "Research" and "Scientific Research" are not inextricably linked - I work in an R&D department, and not all research we do is scientific. We do have scientific research, but it's handled very differently from the PoC type of work that occurs more broadly. We are forced to choose between handing out trade secrets in exchange for gaining more soundness in our theories, or keeping them sheltered and hoping our observations hold up. That doesn't mean our research can't inform our decisions towards profitability, only that it's not scientific. Edit: I mean, c'mon - the final step to the scientific method is "communicate your results". I'm surprised this requires explaining.
- rcpt 4y agoSounds like a lot of pedantry tbqh
- VoodooJuJu 4y agoNothing sad about it. Keep theorizing and academizing. It's useful. It's not nearly as useful as tinkerers building usable non-theoretical things. It's no wonder that launching a rocket is more impressive and eye-catching than a guy shuffling papers. Don't dare knock down the doers, the risk-takers, the ones with skin in the game. OpenAI provides me with a real, useful tool, something that directly improves mine and many others' lives. Your papers do not have that effect on my life.
- bo1024 4y agoI don't mean to knock down doers or risk-takers. On the contrary, I'm saying don't try to compete with the doers when you're not one. > OpenAI provides me with a real, useful tool, something that directly improves mine and many others' lives. Your papers do not have that effect on my life. Of course, OpenAI's work is built directly on top of publicly-funded research papers of the past 5, 10, 50 years.
- pronto-columnar 4y agoWeirdly aggressive response. do you think technologies like gpt were developed without any academic input?
- revelio 4y agoWell, the core transformers/attention paper came from Google and the DNN revolution was also kicked off by Jeff Dean at Google, no? Yes, some of the very original neural net theory was laid in academia and maybe the original GAN paper came from it, don't recall, but AI academics were complaining about being unable to keep up and having their departments be raided even 7 or 8 years ago. It's not a new complaint. So this particular AI summer doesn't seem to owe much to academia.
- kalimanzaro 4y agoThe oddest thing about all these anti-academic takes is that OpenAI insiders and even some informed outsiders like John Carmack think of OpenAI (and google before that) as an extension of academia. The paper posted here is more akin to lower tier academics griping about R1 universities getting most of the funding (and using amoral tactics to get that funding). Seriously. OpenAI is just another R1 department (outsized corporate funding, together with an excellent devops and focussed PR team, explains all its shenanigans)
- csomar 4y ago> Unfortunately, the research field of AI is diseased: it places way too much value on showing off big shiny things This applies pretty much to ..euh every field. The wow factor attract investors and money. The way the current economy is structured, it incentives these tactics since these individuals will be able to draw on significant funds and will have a comparative advantage even if they have a worse return ratio. And then it'll pass and a new thing will kick again. Investors have no memory, and I am talking about institutional ones. The supposedly sophisticated folks.