←back to thread

Microsoft and OpenAI's close partnership shows signs of fraying

(www.nytimes.com)
321 points jhunter1016 | 1 comments | 18 Oct 24 11:11 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
twoodfin ◴[18 Oct 24 12:08 UTC] No.41878632[source]▶
Stay for the end and the hilarious idea that OpenAI’s board could declare one day that they’ve created AGI simply to weasel out of their contract with Microsoft.
replies(4): >>41878980 #>>41878982 #>>41880653 #>>41880775 #
candiddevmike ◴[18 Oct 24 12:53 UTC] No.41878982[source]▶
Ask a typical "everyday joe" and they'll probably tell you they already did due to how ChatGPT has been reported and hyped. I've spoken with/helped quite a few older folks who are terrified that ChatGPT in its current form is going to kill them.
replies(5): >>41879058 #>>41879151 #>>41880771 #>>41881072 #>>41881131 #
ilrwbwrkhv ◴[18 Oct 24 13:03 UTC] No.41879058[source]▶
It's crazy to me that anybody thinks that these models will end up with AGI. AGI is such a different concept from what is happening right now which is pure probabilistic sampling of words that anybody with a half a brain who doesn't drink the Kool-Aid can easily identify.

I remember all the hype open ai had done before the release of chat GPT-2 or something where they were so afraid, ooh so afraid to release this stuff and now it's a non-issue. it's all just marketing gimmicks.

replies(7): >>41879115 #>>41880616 #>>41880738 #>>41880753 #>>41880843 #>>41881009 #>>41881023 #
JacobThreeThree ◴[18 Oct 24 16:10 UTC] No.41880738[source]▶
>It's crazy to me that anybody thinks that these models will end up with AGI. AGI is such a different concept from what is happening right now which is pure probabilistic sampling of words that anybody with a half a brain who doesn't drink the Kool-Aid can easily identify.

Totally agree. And it's not just uninformed lay people who think this. Even by OpenAI's own definition of AGI, we're nowhere close.

replies(1): >>41881103 #
1. dylan604 ◴[18 Oct 24 16:42 UTC] No.41881103{3}[source]▶
But you don't get funding stating truth/fact. You get funding by telling people what could be and what they are striving for written as if that's what you are actually doing.