4 ms·

Aaronson worked for OpenAI and should disclose if he has any stock or options. Anyway, it took multiple tries and, as the article itself states, GPT might have

by fHtqhF 1y ago

Aaronson worked for OpenAI and should disclose if he has any stock or options. Anyway, it took multiple tries and, as the article itself states, GPT might have seen a similar function in the training data. I don't find this trial and error pattern matching with human arbitration very impressive.

HPMOR 1y ago
Scott Aaronson worked on watermarking text from GPT to catch plagiarizing. This is the most commercially naïve project ever, given, at the time, most of ChatGPT's paid usage was from students using ChatGPT's output to cheat on assignments. If anything this should serve to disprove his impure motives in reporting these results. I think you are missing the forest in the trees. This is one of the world's leading experts in Quantum Computing, receiving ground breaking technical help, in his field of expertise from a commercially available AI.
- crowd_pleaser 1y ago
  What he worked on is irrelevant. If you are a contractor for an American startup, it is highly likely that you received an options package, especially if you are high profile. The help is not ground breaking. There are decades old theorem prover tactics that are far more impressive, all without AI.
  - frozenseven 1y ago
    Two new accounts suddenly show up. This one named after a phrase that was mentioned just minutes ago ("crowd pleaser"). Huh? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45408531 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45408531
  - HPMOR 1y ago
    Actually, this is wrong. The point of being a contractor is to __not__ give somebody an options package, or full-time employee benefits. My friends who are resident researchers at OAI do not get any option packages. Regardless, his financial considerations are secondary to the fact, AI has rapidly saturated most if not all benchmarks associated with high human intelligence, and are now on the precipice of making significant advances in scientific fields. This post comes after a sequence of the ICPC and IMO both falling to AI. You are hoping to minimize these advancements because it gives solace to you (us) as humans. If these are "trivial" advancements then perhaps everything will be alright. But frankly, we must be intellectually honest here. AI is soon to be, significantly smarter than even the smartest humans. And we must grapple with those consequences.
    - hobs 1y ago
      Yeah, contractors never get options, they get cash.
  - HappyPanacea 1y ago
    The help is not ground breaking as an argument, however being able to come up with it is and is something which decades old theorem prover tactics can't do at all (unless you fix N).
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
anothermathbozo 1y ago
It’s always a crowd pleaser to be skeptical of ai development. Not sure what people feel like they are achieving for continually announcing they aren’t buying it when someone claims they’ve made effective use of these tools.
derektank 1y ago
>I don't find this trial and error pattern matching with human arbitration very impressive. It might not be very impressive, but if it allows experts in mathematics and physics to reduce the amount of time it takes them to produce new proofs from 1-2 weeks to 1-2 hours, that's a very meaningful improvement in their productivity.
fancyfredbot 1y ago
If Aaronson had stock or options in OpenAI I don't think he'd feel much need to make misleading statements to try and juice the stock price. For one thing it's not a listed stock and his readers can't buy it however much he hyped it. For another OpenAI's private market valuation is actually doing okay already. This blog probably doesn't have any ability to move the perceived value of OpenAI. Finally he's a very principled academic, not some kind of fly by night stock analyst. If you'd been reading his blog a while you'd know the chances of him saying something like this would be vanishingly small, unless it was true.

by fHtqhF 1y ago

HPMOR 1y ago

Scott Aaronson worked on watermarking text from GPT to catch plagiarizing. This is the most commercially naïve project ever, given, at the time, most of ChatGPT's paid usage was from students using ChatGPT's output to cheat on assignments. If anything this should serve to disprove his impure motives in reporting these results. I think you are missing the forest in the trees. This is one of the world's leading experts in Quantum Computing, receiving ground breaking technical help, in his field of expertise from a commercially available AI.

crowd_pleaser 1y ago
What he worked on is irrelevant. If you are a contractor for an American startup, it is highly likely that you received an options package, especially if you are high profile. The help is not ground breaking. There are decades old theorem prover tactics that are far more impressive, all without AI.
- frozenseven 1y ago
  Two new accounts suddenly show up. This one named after a phrase that was mentioned just minutes ago ("crowd pleaser"). Huh? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45408531 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45408531
- HPMOR 1y ago
  Actually, this is wrong. The point of being a contractor is to __not__ give somebody an options package, or full-time employee benefits. My friends who are resident researchers at OAI do not get any option packages. Regardless, his financial considerations are secondary to the fact, AI has rapidly saturated most if not all benchmarks associated with high human intelligence, and are now on the precipice of making significant advances in scientific fields. This post comes after a sequence of the ICPC and IMO both falling to AI. You are hoping to minimize these advancements because it gives solace to you (us) as humans. If these are "trivial" advancements then perhaps everything will be alright. But frankly, we must be intellectually honest here. AI is soon to be, significantly smarter than even the smartest humans. And we must grapple with those consequences.
  - hobs 1y ago
    Yeah, contractors never get options, they get cash.
- HappyPanacea 1y ago
  The help is not ground breaking as an argument, however being able to come up with it is and is something which decades old theorem prover tactics can't do at all (unless you fix N).
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

anothermathbozo 1y ago

It’s always a crowd pleaser to be skeptical of ai development. Not sure what people feel like they are achieving for continually announcing they aren’t buying it when someone claims they’ve made effective use of these tools.

derektank 1y ago

>I don't find this trial and error pattern matching with human arbitration very impressive. It might not be very impressive, but if it allows experts in mathematics and physics to reduce the amount of time it takes them to produce new proofs from 1-2 weeks to 1-2 hours, that's a very meaningful improvement in their productivity.

fancyfredbot 1y ago

If Aaronson had stock or options in OpenAI I don't think he'd feel much need to make misleading statements to try and juice the stock price. For one thing it's not a listed stock and his readers can't buy it however much he hyped it. For another OpenAI's private market valuation is actually doing okay already. This blog probably doesn't have any ability to move the perceived value of OpenAI. Finally he's a very principled academic, not some kind of fly by night stock analyst. If you'd been reading his blog a while you'd know the chances of him saying something like this would be vanishingly small, unless it was true.