reducesuffering

3 ms·

1.
by reducesuffering 9d ago
Yes, but clearly that's not what Zitron was implying. The rest of his thread's commentary makes that clearer. He's saying: OpenAI is going to implode soon. They would have to raise an unfathomable amount of money, it's
2.
by reducesuffering 9d ago
"Based on estimates of their burn rate and historic analyses, I hypothesize that OpenAI will collapse in the next 12-24 months unless it raises more funding than in the history of the valley and creates an entirely new form of AI.&quot
3.
by reducesuffering 12d ago
Yep, anyone who thinks these leaders are only saying this now for marketing purposes hasn't even done a cursory 15 minute investigation into whether their beliefs are verifiably false.
4.
by reducesuffering 12d ago
Because they can't. If they actually engaged with it, they would realize how shallow the "doomer" / existential risk dismissals are. Meanwhile there are ample essays and arguments about the existential issues from Turing
5.
by reducesuffering 13d ago
As you should. Sacks takes the contrarian moronic take on everything, and the people that are correct and prescient (idk maybe all of the people who ended up as CEO's of frontier labs and Turing award winners in AI?) are saying that AG
6.
by reducesuffering 13d ago
Already determined, but yes frontier models will eventually identify them confidently
7.
by reducesuffering 14d ago
This thread is a testament to the travesty of how bad HN discourse has gotten. It's become an echo chamber of knee-jerk cynical sneering. All the heads of the labs (Sama, Dario, Demis Hassabis, Ilya, Musk) agree with the risks to human
8.
by reducesuffering 14d ago
It's worrying because they all agree, along with Turing Award winners like Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio, that this is indeed an existential risk to humanity.
9.
by reducesuffering 15d ago
Yes, that's the point. It does no good for the US to stop if China doesn't. It does no good for the US to go full speed ahead to beat China, it still leads to a high probability of extinction. That would be like saying "I can
10.
by reducesuffering 15d ago
https://www.thecompendium.ai/ai-catastrophe https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uMQ3cqWDPHhjtiesc/agi-ruin-a... A book if you will: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_Anyone_Builds_
11.
by reducesuffering 15d ago
"The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. This is not a marketing stunt. If anything, many executives and senior researchers will couch their phrasing in the press to sound sensible -
12.
by reducesuffering 16d ago
This forum is fundamentally unserious and complete kneejerk cynicism these days. At one point it was prescient. Now these types of things were discussed years ago in other channels and when we reach a point where finally everyone comes ar
13.
by reducesuffering 16d ago
GCP reported its first quarterly operating profit in Q1 2023, roughly 15 years after Google began offering cloud computing. Frontier labs are also reinvesting their tens of billions of revenue back into infra scaleout, sounds like Amazon. I
14.
by reducesuffering 16d ago
This is exactly how Cloud Computing looked in 2012-2018. Dumping huge $ into computing buildout that wasn't profitable yet. All those co's: Amazon, GCP, Azure paid off immensely and are ridiculously profitable.
15.
Personal Statement on Joining the OpenAI Board(paulfchristiano.substack.com)
4 points by reducesuffering 17d ago|0 comments
16.
by reducesuffering 17d ago
GP defined reasonable people as not believing in existential risk from AGI. I think the leadership and alignment teams are way more informed and reasonable than some of the very poorly thought through takes like GP just making things up abo
17.
by reducesuffering 17d ago
Both companies have deluded themselves into thinking the arms race is going to happen anyway and they need to rush to it first, as if somehow that helps. They have publicly stated as such repeatedly. They think the ~10-50% chance of extinct
18.
by reducesuffering 17d ago
How is it not addressed? The company never contained only "reasonable people" that believe AGI is not an existential risk to humanity. At both inceptions were people who believed in AGI x-risk, even the founders. Only after time,
19.
by reducesuffering 17d ago
Before OpenAI was ever even founded, way before any regulatory capture plausible claims: "Development of superhuman machine intelligence (SMI) [1] is probably the greatest threat to the continued existence of humanity. There are other
20.
by reducesuffering 17d ago
> I can only assume the reasonable people at openai and anthropic were all pushed out long ago Typical uninformed take on the side of "doomers are crazy". Both CEO's of OpenAI, Sam Altman and Dario Amodei, and many in thei
21.
by reducesuffering 18d ago
More like latent societal anxiety, some chaos, and then instant grey goo.
22.
by reducesuffering 18d ago
> extremely intelligent people make confident predictions about AI capabilities and progress, then be so completely wrong. The ability for the human mind to rationalize conclusions to maintain denial in the face of a very scary future is
23.
by reducesuffering 18d ago
Yes a couple of elite mathematicians working on the problem for a year, which AGI solved in a fraction of the time. What about everyone else 100IQ? What about as the models are even better 1 year from now, 2 years? The trajectory hasn'
24.
by reducesuffering 18d ago
Practical?! The goalposts will keep moving until morale improves (narrator: it doesn't)
25.
by reducesuffering 25d ago
> The bubble is here Zitron implied 2 years ago that OpenAI would collapse by now. How's that bubble popping going? All NVDA+memory co+frontier lab numbers are accelerating
26.
by reducesuffering 26d ago
You've been here awhile, this forum is default incredibly skeptical and critical, especially when it comes to AI. It has been to their predictive detriment for many years now. AI bubble conviction is over 2 years now, $300b NVDA profit
27.
by reducesuffering 1mo ago
Their profits are incredible too, they have 62% net margin! Last quarter $60b profit on $96b revenue. Since the "AI bubble going to pop" terrible takes 2 years ago, NVDA has made $300b in profits.
28.
by reducesuffering 1mo ago
Yes, exactly why you should not put belief in someone who has proven themselves to make poor predictions. He's even further removed from the zeitgeist 9 years later. Daniel Kokotajlo had the closest prediction for our current world, 5
29.
by reducesuffering 1mo ago
Once a model like Fable/Mythos is trained, that was used for this project, the inference costs are profitable. CapEx vs. OpEx. Every new Zig->Rust port of this caliber using Fable/Mythos costs the standard token price, it'
30.
by reducesuffering 1mo ago
Lobste.rs is now flagging Bun 1.4 post as spam and comments are dismissing it as nothing, even as that blog post got much more discussion and piling on about the rewrite. Internet echo chambers are quite a problem. AI success and its immens

More ›