zlacker

>>andsoi+(OP)
Through all of this, no one has cogently explained why Altman leaving is such a big deal. Why would workers immediately quit their job when he has no other company, and does he even know who these workers are? Are these people that desperate to make a buck (or the prospect of big bucks)? It seems like half of the people working at the non-profit were not actually concerned about the mission but rather just waiting out their turn for big bucks and fame.

What does Altman bring to the table besides raising money from foreign governments and states, apparently? I just do not understand all of this. Like, how does him leaving and getting replaced by another CEO the next week really change anything at the ground level other than distractions from the mission being gone?

And the outpouring of support for someone who was clearly not operating how he marketed himself publicly is strange and disturbing indeed.

>>bmitc+yj
The board fired Altman for shipping too fast compared to their safety-ist doom preferences. The new interim CEO has said that he wants to slow AI development down 80-90%. Why on earth would you stay, if you joined to build + ship technology?

Of course, some employees may agree with the doom/safety board ideology, and will no doubt stay. But I highly doubt everyone will, especially the researchers who were working on new, powerful models — many of them view this as their life's work. Sam offers them the ability to continue.

If you think this is about "the big bucks" or "fame," I think you don't understand the people on the other side of this argument at all.

>>reissb+ml
This is exactly why you would want people on the board who understand the technology. Unless they have some other technology that we don't know about, that maybe brought all this on, a GPT is not a clear path to AGI. That is a technical thing that to understand seems to be beyond most people without real experience in the field. It is certainly beyond the understanding of some dude that lucked into a great training set and became an expert, much the same way the The Knack became industry leaders.

>>mianos+ro
>Unless they have some other technology that we don't know about, that maybe brought all this on, a GPT is not a clear path to AGI.

So Ilya Sutskever, one of the most distinguished ML researchers of his generation does not understand the technology ?

The same guy who's been on record saying LLMs are enough for AGI ?

>>famous+4q
To be clear, he thinks that LLMs are probably a general architecture, and thus capable of reaching AGI in principle with enormous amounts of compute, data, and work. He thinks for cost and economics reasons it's much more feasible to build or train other parts and have them work together, because that's much cheaper in terms of compute. As an example, with a big enough model, enough work, and the right mix of data you could probably have an LMM interpret speech just as well as Whisper can. But how much work does it take to make that happen without losing other capabilities? How efficient is the resulting huge model? Is the end result better than having the text/intelligence segment separate from the speech and hearing segment? The answer could be yes, depending, but it could also be no. Basically his beliefs are that it's complicated and it's not really a "Can X architecture do this" question but a "How cheap is this architecture to accomplish this task" question.

>>lucubr+rD
This is wholly besides the point. The person I'm replying to is clearly saying the only people who believe "GPT is on the path to AGI" are non technical people who don't "truly understand". Blatantly false.

It's like an appeal to authority against an authority that isn't even saying what you're appealing for.