zlacker

>>Jimmc4+(OP)
who is this and why is it important? [1]

super-alignment co-lead with Ilya (who resigned yesterday)

what is super alignment? [2]

> We need scientific and technical breakthroughs to steer and control AI systems much smarter than us. Our goal is to solve the core technical challenges of superintelligence alignment by 2027.

[1] https://jan.leike.name/ [2] https://openai.com/superalignment/

>>kamika+t51
My honest-to-god guess is that it just seemed like a needless cost center in a growing business, so there was pressure against them doing the work they wanted to do.

I'm guessing, but OpenAI probably wants to start monetizing, and doesn't feel like they are going to hit a superintelligence, not really. That may have been the goal originally.

>>jvande+n71
>it just seemed like a needless cost center in a growing business

To some of us, that sounds like, "Fire all the climate scientists because they are needless cost center distracting us from the noble goal of burning as much fossil fuel as possible."

>>holler+cb1
It's more like you started a company to research new fuel sources and hired climate scientists to evaluate the environmental impact of those new fuel sources, but during the course of the research you invented a new internal combustion engine that operates 1000% more efficiently so you pivoted your entire business toward that, removing the need for climate scientists.

This is a tortured analogy, but what I'm getting at is, if OpenAI is no longer pursuing AGI/superintelligence, it doesn't need an expensive superintelligence alignment team.

>>mjr00+Uc1
> if OpenAI is no longer pursuing AGI/superintelligence

What leads you to believe that's true?

>>marius+Kh1
Microsoft dumping $10 billion into them to commercialize LLM tech, primarily.

>>mjr00+ik1
If anything, in my opinion, the more runway they have, the better chances to actually hit an inflexion point in AGI development. But maybe you're right.