6 ms·
A 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
by polygamous_bat 3y ago
A 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.
- qarl 3y ago> Not necessarily? Well then, I expect we'll see a bunch of small projects that beat the big players any day now. I won't hold my breath.
- edgyquant 3y agoAgain you haven’t a clue of the point here. They were created as a research lab and instead after taking a paper created at Google they went closed source and are simply scaling that instead of working to create new and improved models that can actually run on reasonable hardware. Small transformers being able to beat the same models but scaled up is unrelated to anything being discussed and you just seem like a fanboy at this point
- qarl 3y ago> Again you haven’t a clue of the point here I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
- edgyquant 3y agoNo it’s a scapegoat to justify doing whatever and using a meme word so that sci-fi fans will accept that whatever. The fact you’re eating it up here is pure cringe, grow up. These people took a non-profit with an egalitarian mission and reversed course once they saw they could make fuck you money. The “AGI” excuse is one only the immature are buying. Dude.
- wseqyrku 3y agoI don't remember reading an exchange like this on HN ever. Either I wasn't paying attention enough or it's just demographic changing? I don't want to start an argument with either of you but it's painful to see US literally being split in half, even when you watch a movie, you can reasonably guess which side the filmmaker is standing depending on the story, narrative, and perhaps the ending. Same for any other outlet that you can think of, including comments on HN, methinks.