zlacker

>>davidb+(OP)
Kara Swisher: a “misalignment” of the profit versus nonprofit adherents at the company https://twitter.com/karaswisher/status/1725678074333635028

She also says that there will be many more top employees leaving.

>>convex+C01
Sutskever: "You can call it (a coup), and I can understand why you chose this word, but I disagree with this. This was the board doing its duty to the mission of the nonprofit, which is to make sure that OpenAI builds AGI that benefits all of humanity." Scoop: theinformation.com

https://twitter.com/GaryMarcus/status/1725707548106580255

>>convex+ch1
That "the most important company in the world" bit is so out of touch with reality.

Imagine the hubris.

>>wheele+J72
I'd argue they are the closest to AGI (how far off that is no one knows). That would make them a strong contender for the most important company in the world in my book.

>>bl0rg+rk2
AGI without a body is just a glorified chatbot that is dependant on available, human provided resources.

To create true AGI, you would need to make the software aware of its surroundings and provide it with a way to experience the real world.

>>wheele+tn2
Even if that was true, do you think it would be hard to hook it up to a Boston Dynamics robot and potentially add a few sensors? I reckon that could be done in an afternoon (by humans), or a few seconds (by the AGI). I feel like I'm missing your point.

>>bl0rg+fE2
Well, we don't know how hard it is. But if it hasn't been done yet, it must be much harder than most people think.

If you do manage to make a thinking, working AGI machine, would you call it "a living being"?

No, the machine still needs to have individuality, a way to experience "oness" that all living humans (and perhaps animals, we don't know) feel. Some call it "a soul", others "consciousness".

The machine would have to live independently from its creators, to be self-aware, to multiply. Otherwise, it is just a shell filled with random data gathered from the Internet and its surroundings.