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
Well John Carmack is trying to make inroads towards AGI without going the huge compute route, so I don't think it's inherently obvious that it's the only game in town.

https://dallasinnovates.com/exclusive-qa-john-carmacks-diffe...

>>MrScru+le2
Carmack is basically a complete nobody in AI.

I think he'll be able to do some good stuff on the software side (i.e. the industry is full of AI cowboys who can't code) but on the fundamental side it's hard to see him doing much.

>>mhh__+vq2
He addresses this in the interview.

In terms of research background, you're right. But he's someone with a history of original thought and as he states, it's not clear that we're at the stage of machine learning where useful contributions from newcomers taking a different direction are vanishingly unlikely.

I'm sure OpenAI wouldn't have offered him a job if they thought he couldn't contribute anything of value.