6 ms·

OpenAI's plans according to Sam Altman

80 points by mmastrac 3y ago

personjerry 3y ago
Originally discussed here a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36141544 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36141544
- samspenc 3y ago
  The only issue with that is the original link has its content redacted at OpenAI or Sam's request, which is why this post has a link to the archive.org version with the original contents.
codetrotter 3y ago
> The usage of plugins, other than browsing, suggests that they don’t have PMF yet. What is PMF?
- dsp 3y ago
  product market fit
0xy 3y ago
Beg government to regulate their competitors out of existence?
ExoticPearTree 3y ago
I’ve seen parts of the Congress testimony of Sam Altman amd it felt like the guy was on a power trip with his regulation ideas. What he accomplished with OpenAI is for the history books, but wanting monopoly over AI development in the US makes him look like an up and coming villain.
- aunty_helen 3y ago
  It's almost as if he's changed his tune since having 10b$ invested in his company.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    Changed? It's the same song as before they were famous. > We’ve co-authored a paper that forecasts how malicious actors could misuse AI technology, and potential ways we can prevent and mitigate these threats. This paper is the outcome of almost a year of sustained work with our colleagues at the Future of Humanity Institute, the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, the Center for a New American Security, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and others. - 2018, https://openai.com/research/preparing-for-malicious-uses-of-ai https://openai.com/research/preparing-for-malicious-uses-of-...
- jstummbillig 3y ago
  Nothing that he said in Congress supports the claim that he wants monopoly over AI development. I find it fascinating how people are so happy to turn argumentation on it's head, and pretend it's the same thing. Surely you must know you are doing it? But what is to gain, I do not know.
  - devoutsalsa 3y ago
    As I understand it, most people's objection to the calls for regulation are based on the fact that regulation raises the barriers to entry for competition. Regulatory compliance can be expensive and favors those with deep pockets. The more AI startups one can prevent from starting/growing now, the fewer competitors there will be in the future.
    - jstummbillig 3y ago
      All of which is entirely reasonable and so is considering all of Samas possible motivations. But just declaring another parties intentions as you see fit is such an incredibly bad style in any discourse. When filling the gaps of your knowledge, there has to be a world in which Sama is in fact a good human being – in addition to the world where he is not – when that assumption does not logically conflict with anything that he is proposing. His argumentation for regulation is coherent. The concept of regulation is not complicated or new, it requires no good faith, it makes obvious sense for obvious reasons. This does not mean that those reasons are what Sama motivated to make this proposal. But when being able to string together an argument is all that is required to forgo any other possible arguments, we are in deep trouble. We need to be able to consider intentions with uncertainty and stay attentive to what is being said and done.
usrbinbash 3y ago
Whether scaling laws hold or not, is up for debate. What isn't up for debate, is that: 1) Giant serverfarms are expensive 2) People want on premises/on machine solutions 3) LoRA Tuning of small models continues to excel 4) Thus specialized models continue to evolve at a fast pace 5) Open source foundation models on which tuning can be done are accelerating by the week 6) Performance doesn't matter once a model is "good enough" for a given task The long and short of it is this: LLMs are a fantastic technology, and people want to have it. And they want to have it local, private, and as cheap as possible. Just one example, how many devs are out there who would love having a local LLM model integrated into their IDE? The answer: Yes. And again I draw your attention to point 6): For such use-cases, It doesn't matter if a gargantuan model performs a bit better ... if the small model is good enough for the task, then it wins, purely by being private, offline and is free to use. We are already at a point, where small models are competitive for specialized tasks, and aren't performing bad at all as general models either. What will it take for bigger models to out-perform them so enourmously that customers simply have no other choice than to use them? A 5x increase in size? 10x? 100x? Where do we run models with trillions of params? What will that cost, and how available will that be?
- YetAnotherNick 3y ago
  > And they want to have it local, private, and as cheap as possible. Most people don't care about local and private. They care about cheap and free ChatGPT is the cheapest they could get, which is better than all open access models. > Open source foundation models on which tuning can be done are accelerating by the week Based on the (unverified)information I have been hearing in the research circle is that OpenAI invested heavily in data collection. One thing I heard is that they have hired experts to label lot of codes with information like complexity, correctness etc. Also the questions and RLHF data they get from real users is something open access models can't match. Palm 2 chat is significantly worse than ChatGPT(free), even though it is larger and trained by experts in the field.
  - mr_mitm 3y ago
    > Most people don't care about local and private. Right, but corporations do. And AI is a revolution because it makes workers substantially more efficient, not because it makes for a slightly better Google. If corporations want to leverage AI to make their workforce more efficient, it must be local and private in many cases. OpenAI is already experiencing friction in the EU.
skilled 3y ago
I think there's zero chance that OpenAI won't create a full-scale vector solution in the near future. The market is too big for them to ignore the need for people to upload and query their own data. Which, as others pointed out, might be the reason they wanted to remove this because Sam said, "We have no plans to expand beyond the UI.". If you look at Pinecone, their Standard plan is $70 a month. Like, OpenAI already does some memory management in the interface - it makes no sense to ignore the earnings potential with this, which would give them more runway to spend on training future models.
bkyan 3y ago
Is there a reason this post is pointing to a capture of the article at archive.org rather than to the original Humanloop webpage?
- naiv 3y ago
  It was removed: https://humanloop.com/blog/openai-plans https://humanloop.com/blog/openai-plans "This content has been removed at the request of OpenAI."
  - kenorb 3y ago
    https://web.archive.org/web/20230531203946/https://humanloop.com/blog/openai-plans https://web.archive.org/web/20230531203946/https://humanloop... https://archive.is/rcbem https://archive.is/rcbem
anotheryou 3y ago
Will the stateful API make things faster or cheaper? Or does it just simplify the API usage? I'd guess mostly the latter, but don't know.
- usrbinbash 3y ago
  It would simplify the API usage. An LLM model is stateless, and so still needs the complete context presented with every subsequent query.
vpastore 3y ago
[dead]

80 points by mmastrac 3y ago

Originally discussed here a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36141544 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36141544

samspenc 3y ago
The only issue with that is the original link has its content redacted at OpenAI or Sam's request, which is why this post has a link to the archive.org version with the original contents.

codetrotter 3y ago

> The usage of plugins, other than browsing, suggests that they don’t have PMF yet. What is PMF?

dsp 3y ago
product market fit

0xy 3y ago

Beg government to regulate their competitors out of existence?

ExoticPearTree 3y ago

I’ve seen parts of the Congress testimony of Sam Altman amd it felt like the guy was on a power trip with his regulation ideas. What he accomplished with OpenAI is for the history books, but wanting monopoly over AI development in the US makes him look like an up and coming villain.

aunty_helen 3y ago
It's almost as if he's changed his tune since having 10b$ invested in his company.
- ben_w 3y ago
  Changed? It's the same song as before they were famous. > We’ve co-authored a paper that forecasts how malicious actors could misuse AI technology, and potential ways we can prevent and mitigate these threats. This paper is the outcome of almost a year of sustained work with our colleagues at the Future of Humanity Institute, the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, the Center for a New American Security, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and others. - 2018, https://openai.com/research/preparing-for-malicious-uses-of-ai https://openai.com/research/preparing-for-malicious-uses-of-...
jstummbillig 3y ago
Nothing that he said in Congress supports the claim that he wants monopoly over AI development. I find it fascinating how people are so happy to turn argumentation on it's head, and pretend it's the same thing. Surely you must know you are doing it? But what is to gain, I do not know.
- devoutsalsa 3y ago
  As I understand it, most people's objection to the calls for regulation are based on the fact that regulation raises the barriers to entry for competition. Regulatory compliance can be expensive and favors those with deep pockets. The more AI startups one can prevent from starting/growing now, the fewer competitors there will be in the future.
  - jstummbillig 3y ago
    All of which is entirely reasonable and so is considering all of Samas possible motivations. But just declaring another parties intentions as you see fit is such an incredibly bad style in any discourse. When filling the gaps of your knowledge, there has to be a world in which Sama is in fact a good human being – in addition to the world where he is not – when that assumption does not logically conflict with anything that he is proposing. His argumentation for regulation is coherent. The concept of regulation is not complicated or new, it requires no good faith, it makes obvious sense for obvious reasons. This does not mean that those reasons are what Sama motivated to make this proposal. But when being able to string together an argument is all that is required to forgo any other possible arguments, we are in deep trouble. We need to be able to consider intentions with uncertainty and stay attentive to what is being said and done.

usrbinbash 3y ago

Whether scaling laws hold or not, is up for debate. What isn't up for debate, is that: 1) Giant serverfarms are expensive 2) People want on premises/on machine solutions 3) LoRA Tuning of small models continues to excel 4) Thus specialized models continue to evolve at a fast pace 5) Open source foundation models on which tuning can be done are accelerating by the week 6) Performance doesn't matter once a model is "good enough" for a given task The long and short of it is this: LLMs are a fantastic technology, and people want to have it. And they want to have it local, private, and as cheap as possible. Just one example, how many devs are out there who would love having a local LLM model integrated into their IDE? The answer: Yes. And again I draw your attention to point 6): For such use-cases, It doesn't matter if a gargantuan model performs a bit better ... if the small model is good enough for the task, then it wins, purely by being private, offline and is free to use. We are already at a point, where small models are competitive for specialized tasks, and aren't performing bad at all as general models either. What will it take for bigger models to out-perform them so enourmously that customers simply have no other choice than to use them? A 5x increase in size? 10x? 100x? Where do we run models with trillions of params? What will that cost, and how available will that be?

YetAnotherNick 3y ago
> And they want to have it local, private, and as cheap as possible. Most people don't care about local and private. They care about cheap and free ChatGPT is the cheapest they could get, which is better than all open access models. > Open source foundation models on which tuning can be done are accelerating by the week Based on the (unverified)information I have been hearing in the research circle is that OpenAI invested heavily in data collection. One thing I heard is that they have hired experts to label lot of codes with information like complexity, correctness etc. Also the questions and RLHF data they get from real users is something open access models can't match. Palm 2 chat is significantly worse than ChatGPT(free), even though it is larger and trained by experts in the field.
- mr_mitm 3y ago
  > Most people don't care about local and private. Right, but corporations do. And AI is a revolution because it makes workers substantially more efficient, not because it makes for a slightly better Google. If corporations want to leverage AI to make their workforce more efficient, it must be local and private in many cases. OpenAI is already experiencing friction in the EU.

skilled 3y ago

I think there's zero chance that OpenAI won't create a full-scale vector solution in the near future. The market is too big for them to ignore the need for people to upload and query their own data. Which, as others pointed out, might be the reason they wanted to remove this because Sam said, "We have no plans to expand beyond the UI.". If you look at Pinecone, their Standard plan is $70 a month. Like, OpenAI already does some memory management in the interface - it makes no sense to ignore the earnings potential with this, which would give them more runway to spend on training future models.

bkyan 3y ago

Is there a reason this post is pointing to a capture of the article at archive.org rather than to the original Humanloop webpage?

naiv 3y ago
It was removed: https://humanloop.com/blog/openai-plans https://humanloop.com/blog/openai-plans "This content has been removed at the request of OpenAI."
- kenorb 3y ago
  https://web.archive.org/web/20230531203946/https://humanloop.com/blog/openai-plans https://web.archive.org/web/20230531203946/https://humanloop... https://archive.is/rcbem https://archive.is/rcbem

anotheryou 3y ago

Will the stateful API make things faster or cheaper? Or does it just simplify the API usage? I'd guess mostly the latter, but don't know.

usrbinbash 3y ago
It would simplify the API usage. An LLM model is stateless, and so still needs the complete context presented with every subsequent query.

vpastore 3y ago

[dead]