zlacker

>>isaacf+(OP)
What I take away from listening to Sam talk is that in the beginning of Open AI, they didn’t think big compute would be as important as it has become.

It becomes very hard to not have profit incentives when you need to run gigantic supercomputers to push the technology forward. This explains the MS partnership and need to generate profit to fund the training and running of future models.

This doesn’t explain everything, but makes sense to this layman

>>stephe+8s1
I'm flabbergasted that someone would think that AI research wouldn't cost a lot in computer resources.

Next Sam will tell that is that farmers need a lot of land to grow crops.

I'm calling BS on this. It's an excuse not an explanation.

>>Teever+2t1
Also even if that were the case, is that worth diverging from the main mission of the creation of the company to do? If they created the company with non profit in mind (since the consequences of a profit maximizing AI organization is the risk they wanted to avoid) then if you have to relax that constraint in order to build AGI, is that really a trade you should do? (Vs just being smarter with algorithms and more resourceful with resources. Or like tackling something else than LLMs.)