zlacker

>>fnbr+(OP)
Extra respect is due to Jan Leike, then:

https://x.com/janleike/status/1791498174659715494

>>thorum+Bu
I think superalignment is absurd, and model "safety" is the modern AI company's "think of the children" pearl clutching pretext to justify digging moats. All this after sucking up everyone's copyright material as fair use, then not releasing the result, and profiting off it.

All due respect to Jan here, though. He's being (perhaps dangerously) honest, genuinely believes in AI safety, and is an actual research expert, unlike me.

>>a_wild+Xv
Adding a disclaimer for people unaware of context (I feel same as you):

OpenAI made a large commitment to super-alignment in the not-so-distant past. I beleive mid-2023. Famously, it has always taken AI Safety™ very seriously.

Regardless of anyone's feelings on the need for a dedicated team for it, you can chalk to one up as another instance of OpenAI cough leadership cough speaking out of both sides of it's mouth as is convenient. The only true north star is fame, glory, and user count, dressed up as humble "research"

To really stress this: OpenAI's still-present cofounder shared yesterday on a podcast that they expect AGI in ~2 years and ASI (superpassing human intelligence) by end of the decade.

>>refulg+rw
>To really stress this: OpenAI's still-present cofounder shared yesterday on a podcast that they expect AGI in ~2 years and ASI (superpassing human intelligence) by end of the decade.

Link? Is the ~2 year timeline a common estimate in the field?

>>N0b8ez+wy
They can't even clearly define a test of "AGI" I seriously doubt they're going to reach it in two years. Alternatively, they could define a fairly trivial test and reach it last year.