3 ms·

> but there is still a real possibility that LLMs and the underlying architecture don't pan out with regards to the company's goal of developing anything resemb

> but there is still a real possibility that LLMs and the underlying architecture don't pan out with regards to the company's goal of developing anything resembling an AGI. There is, but in one sense, who cares? The technology is already super useful, even if it ends up not being the end all and be all of AGI. That is, there are really only 2 options: 1. LLMs are an important stepping stone on the way to AGI, in which case OpenAI is in a great position as the company with the best LLM. 2. LLMs turn out to be a "local maximum" in the search for AGI. I think that even if that actually is the case, OpenAI is still in a great position with much of the infrastructure, data, expertise, etc. even if they require totally new model approaches. Also, I wouldn't worry so much about #2 because if we do ever get AGI, our economy would surely collapse, or else it would look completely unrecognizable to our current economic systems. That is, I'm always struck that when people talk about AGI fears they talk about things like Skynet and misinformation, but nearly our entire society is organized around people selling their labor for a price. I don't know what our economy will look like when/if AGI becomes real, but I do know it will change drastically if it means that the vast majority of people won't be able to price their labor more than $0.

_heimdall 3y ago
> LLMs are an important stepping stone on the way to AGI, in which case OpenAI is in a great position as the company with the best LLM We don't actually know this though. Assuming an AGI hasn't yet been developed, we don't know whether LLMs will actually get us there. We know they seem to have more use than previous ML systems, but until we have an AGI we can't say what will get us there. Further, are we really assuming that developing AGI is either a shared goal or a given regardless of what people would actually want to happen? It sounds like we agree on the fundamental impacts an AGI would have on our current societal structures, do we as a society not get a say in the change? Have we effectively blessed a handful of people working in the private sector to make that decision for everyone? And if so, when do we grapple with the moral questions, like whether an AGI has rights similar to humans, or if unplugging one is murder, etc?
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  I think you misunderstood my comment. I gave those two bullet points as mutually exclusive options, where one of them must, pretty much by definition, be true. That is, you responded "We don't actually know this though. Assuming an AGI hasn't yet been developed, we don't know whether LLMs will actually get us there." Exactly, we don't know if this is true, in which case if it's false my second bullet point "LLMs turn out to be a 'local maximum' in the search for AGI." is the true statement.
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    I guess I'm not quite sure how those are the two options. For the second scenario, if LLMs are the local maximum and hit a wall, OpenAI would only be in a good spot if the challenges hit don't invalidate core differentiators of their company. For example, if GPU-based systems are the limiting factor they wouldn't have the edge. If the problem turns out to be in the human skills and background needed to develop an AGI they similarly wouldn't have the advantage. Wouldn't there have to be a third scenario, where they walked down a path that doesn't pan out at all and requires a fundamental rethink effectively going back to square one?
    - atq2119 3y ago
      If human skills behind the model are a limiting factor, then OpenAI is in a pretty good position: they have a headstart, and software tends towards "winner takes all" because of the low marginal cost. Look at Google search for a great example of this in a related (perhaps even the same...) market. Of course, a pretty good position doesn't guarantee winning, but GP didn't claim that. But yeah, there are probably outcomes in which LLMs are a local maximum and ultimately dead end, and OpenAI will have a hard time holding on because the market turns out more competitive. And somebody might beat them to whatever the next important invention is. We'll see.

_heimdall 3y ago

> LLMs are an important stepping stone on the way to AGI, in which case OpenAI is in a great position as the company with the best LLM We don't actually know this though. Assuming an AGI hasn't yet been developed, we don't know whether LLMs will actually get us there. We know they seem to have more use than previous ML systems, but until we have an AGI we can't say what will get us there. Further, are we really assuming that developing AGI is either a shared goal or a given regardless of what people would actually want to happen? It sounds like we agree on the fundamental impacts an AGI would have on our current societal structures, do we as a society not get a say in the change? Have we effectively blessed a handful of people working in the private sector to make that decision for everyone? And if so, when do we grapple with the moral questions, like whether an AGI has rights similar to humans, or if unplugging one is murder, etc?

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
I think you misunderstood my comment. I gave those two bullet points as mutually exclusive options, where one of them must, pretty much by definition, be true. That is, you responded "We don't actually know this though. Assuming an AGI hasn't yet been developed, we don't know whether LLMs will actually get us there." Exactly, we don't know if this is true, in which case if it's false my second bullet point "LLMs turn out to be a 'local maximum' in the search for AGI." is the true statement.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  I guess I'm not quite sure how those are the two options. For the second scenario, if LLMs are the local maximum and hit a wall, OpenAI would only be in a good spot if the challenges hit don't invalidate core differentiators of their company. For example, if GPU-based systems are the limiting factor they wouldn't have the edge. If the problem turns out to be in the human skills and background needed to develop an AGI they similarly wouldn't have the advantage. Wouldn't there have to be a third scenario, where they walked down a path that doesn't pan out at all and requires a fundamental rethink effectively going back to square one?
  - atq2119 3y ago
    If human skills behind the model are a limiting factor, then OpenAI is in a pretty good position: they have a headstart, and software tends towards "winner takes all" because of the low marginal cost. Look at Google search for a great example of this in a related (perhaps even the same...) market. Of course, a pretty good position doesn't guarantee winning, but GP didn't claim that. But yeah, there are probably outcomes in which LLMs are a local maximum and ultimately dead end, and OpenAI will have a hard time holding on because the market turns out more competitive. And somebody might beat them to whatever the next important invention is. We'll see.