zlacker

[return to "Ilya Sutskever to leave OpenAI"]
1. zoogen+Ix[view] [source] 2024-05-15 04:50:43
>>wavela+(OP)
Interesting, both Karpathy and Sutskever are gone from OpenAI now. Looks like it is now the Sam Altman and Greg Brockman show.

I have to admit, of the four, Karpathy and Sutskever were the two I was most impressed with. I hope he goes on to do something great.

◧◩
2. nabla9+pH[view] [source] 2024-05-15 06:45:38
>>zoogen+Ix
Top 6 science guys are long gone. Open AI is run by marketing, business, software and productization people.

When the next wave of new deep learning innovations sweeps the world, Microsoft eats whats left of them. They make lots of money, but don't have future unless they replace what they lost.

◧◩◪
3. fsloth+O21[view] [source] 2024-05-15 10:40:27
>>nabla9+pH
If we look at history of innovation and invention it’s very typical the original discovery and final productization are done by different people. For many reasons, but a lot of them are universal I would say.

E.g. Oppenheimer’s team created the bomb, then following experts finetuned the subsequent weapon systems and payload designs. Etc.

◧◩◪◨
4. OJFord+l71[view] [source] 2024-05-15 11:24:59
>>fsloth+O21
> If we look at history of innovation and invention it’s very typical the original discovery and final productization are done by different people.

You don't really need to look at history, that's basically science vs engineering in a nutshell.

Maybe history could tell us if that's an accident or a division that arose out of 'natural' occurrence, but I suppose a question for an economist or psychologist or sociologist how natural that could really be anyway or if it's biased by e.g. academics not financially motivated because it happens that there isn't money there; so they don't care about productising; leaving it for others who are so motivated.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. fsloth+4c1[view] [source] 2024-05-15 11:57:46
>>OJFord+l71
With abombs for weapons systems design they needed people who just got huge kicks out of explosions (not kidding here). I guess it’s partially about personal internal motivations, and it might be more of a chance wether the thing you are intrinsically motivated to do falls under engineering or science (in both cases you get the feeling the greats did stuff they wanted to do regardless of the categorizations applied to their discipline - you get more capital affinity in engineering ofc).
[go to top]