6 ms·
Maybe this is for the best. The ones who are in for the money can go to MS, and the ones with a higher calling can stick with OpenAI and we'll see who wins. I'
by dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
Maybe this is for the best. The ones who are in for the money can go to MS, and the ones with a higher calling can stick with OpenAI and we'll see who wins.
I'm convinced an actual, true open approach (ideally open source) will win out, everyone thinks MS has executed a masterstroke, but more likely they've shot their load too early with LLMs only being a signpost on the way to higher-order AI (AGI is a ill-defined fantasy).
- psbp 3y agoThis is such a complete misreading of what's happening. Not sure why I keep seeing this on HN.
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y agoThat's just one view (as is mine), no one knows what's actually happening. In my view Altman represents the 'lets get lots of money' side of things and not much else. The deals with MS, ME financiers, SoftBank, a Jony Ive colab makes that pretty clear. Maybe it's not that simple, but I'd say it's broadly correct.
- nathan11 3y agoIt seems reasonable to say that AGI will take a ton of resources. You'll need investors for power, GPUs, researchers, data, and the list goes on. It's a lot easier to get there with viable commercial products than handouts. I'd be willing to bet that between Sam's approach and the theorized approach of the OpenAI board we're discussing, Sam's approach has a higher chance of success.
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y agoSince AGI isn't a thing, no one knows what it will look like or if it will even exist. The biggest breakthroughs in science do not come from those with the most money. It's all ideas.
- ben_w 3y agoOTOH humans are a non-artificial GI, and we can use ourselves as an anchor for estimates of what we'd need for an artificial equivalent. About 1000x the complexity of GPT-3 and much slower would be the best guess right now.
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y agoIt's looking at humans, how they're trained and their wetware makes me believe that AGI, as most people understand it, ie a super human like intelligence, will never exist. There will be powerful AI but it won't be human like in the way people think about it now.
- ben_w 3y agoThat definition ought to be reserved for ASI (S meaning super) not AGI (G meaning general). That said I agree "human like" is unlikely, although LLMs and diffusion models are much closer than I was expecting.
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y agoThat's because their training source is human output. Human In Human Out (HIHO).
- ben_w 3y agoEven so, was expecting more dissimilarities or even just types of inappropriateness that are very human — humans are a broad bunch, no reason the LLMs wouldn't just default to snarky and lazy, like the example from the OpenAI Dev Day of someone who tried to fine tune on their slack messages, asked it to write something, and it said "Sure, I'll do it in the morning". Despite people calling them stochastic parrots and autocomplete on steroids, ChatGPT is behaving like it is trying to answer rather than merely trying to continue the text the user enters. I find this surprising.
- a_wild_dandan 3y ago
- dmd 3y agoIf this were true, Yudkowsky's MIRI would have solved AGI a decade ago. Turns out you need money and lots of compute power, not just people sitting around talking about the issues.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> If this were true, Yudkowsky's MIRI would have solved AGI a decade ago. Isn't MIRI focussed on “trustworthy reasoning”, not AGI more generally, and doesn't it see untrustworthy AGI as an undesirable thing to develop, even as an instrumental step? So, literally, isn't “solving AGI” an explicit anti-goal?
- rymiel 3y agoAre you really expecting greed to lose? Corporate greed is how we got to where we are currently