6 ms·
Assume good intentions and nothing of substance being hidden: Is there any way to be transparent here that would have satisfied you or are you essentially askin
by jstummbillig 3y ago
Assume good intentions and nothing of substance being hidden: Is there any way to be transparent here that would have satisfied you or are you essentially asking for them to just keep to themselves or something else?
- the_mar 3y agoOh, honey. Never assume good intentions when lawyers are involved
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ncallaway 3y agoThat wasn't the point of the question. The question was a hypothetical to test if there was any possible response that would've satisfied the original poster. They're not suggesting to assume good intentions about the parties forever. They're just asking for that assumption for the purposes of the question that was asked
- rat9988 3y agoThere is no satisfying answer if your actions before are not satisfying. The question implies that the original poster cannot be satisfied, and thus shift the blame implicitly. The problem remain not what the answer is, or how it is worded. The answer only portrays the actions, which are by themselves unsatifsying.
- the_mar 3y agoThe answer is no. Companies don’t do things out of good intentions when lawsuits are involved.
- polygamous_bat 3y agoA great way to be transparent would be to admit that some enormous egos prevented work that should be open from being open, and counterfactually opening them up. Sure, it may piss off microsoft, but statistically things that piss off microsoft also has been great for the world at large. But that will never happen, will it?
- qarl 3y agoI thought it was the fact that they needed a lot of money to train AGI. Everyone seems to agree that's the case. Do you have evidence that it's not?
- edgyquant 3y agoWhat does “train AGI” even mean dude
- qarl 3y agoIt means to run the back-prop algorithm to train neural networks to solve the problem(s) of AGI. Dude.
- smoldesu 3y agoUnless the problem-in-question is Adjusted Gross Income, I don't think you're talking about a well-defined issue in the first place. That's kinda the problem; even half-definitions like "meets or exceeds human performance in all tasks" doesn't specify what those tasks are or what human performance represents. In other words, targeting "AGI" is a ill-defined goalpost that you can move anywhere you want, and shareholders will be forced to follow. Today it's about teaching LLMs to speak French, next week they'll need 7 billion dollars to teach it to flip pancakes.
- qarl 3y agoGOOD GRIEF. You're right, AGI is not well defined. But it is perfectly well defined for the purposes of this conversation. Working in this space (however you want to say it) costs a lot of money. Everyone knows this. You nitpicking definitions does not change that.
- smoldesu 3y ago> Working in this space (however you want to say it) costs a lot of money. Not necessarily? OpenAI deliberately chooses to scale their models vertically, which incumbents like Google and Meta had largely avoided. Their "big innovation" was GPT-4, an LLM of unprecedented scale that brute-forced it's way to the top. The Open Source 72b+ models of today generally give it a run for it's money, the party trick is over. Nitpicking the definitions is important, because for OpenAI it's unclear what comes next. Consumers don't know what to expect, portions of the board appear to be in open rebellion, and our goal of AGI remains yet-undefined. I simply don't trust OpenAI (or Elon, for that matter) to do the right thing here.