Most active commenters
  • bobxmax(3)

←back to thread

Google is winning on every AI front

(www.thealgorithmicbridge.com)
993 points vinhnx | 20 comments | 12 Apr 25 03:58 UTC | HN request time: 1.152s | source | bottom
Show context
codelord ◴[12 Apr 25 06:51 UTC] No.43661966[source]▶
As an Ex-OpenAI employee I agree with this. Most of the top ML talent at OpenAI already have left to either do their own thing or join other startups. A few are still there but I doubt if they'll be around in a year. The main successful product from OpenAI is the ChatGPT app, but there's a limit on how much you can charge people for subscription fees. I think soon people expect this service to be provided for free and ads would become the main option to make money out of chatbots. The whole time that I was at OpenAI until now GOOG has been the only individual stock that I've been holding. Despite the threat to their search business I think they'll bounce back because they have a lot of cards to play. OpenAI is an annoyance for Google, because they are willing to burn money to get users. Google can't as easily burn money, since they already have billions of users, but also they are a public company and have to answer to investors. But I doubt if OpenAI investors would sign up to give more money to be burned in a year. Google just needs to ease off on the red tape and make their innovations available to users as fast as they can. (And don't let me get started with Sam Altman.)
replies(23): >>43661983 #>>43662449 #>>43662490 #>>43662564 #>>43662766 #>>43662930 #>>43662996 #>>43663473 #>>43663586 #>>43663639 #>>43663820 #>>43663824 #>>43664107 #>>43664364 #>>43664519 #>>43664803 #>>43665217 #>>43665577 #>>43667759 #>>43667990 #>>43668759 #>>43669034 #>>43670290 #
1. ksec ◴[12 Apr 25 06:52 UTC] No.43661983[source]▶
> (And don't let me get started with Sam Altman.)

Please do.

replies(4): >>43662067 #>>43662244 #>>43662744 #>>43663124 #
2. isoprophlex ◴[12 Apr 25 07:10 UTC] No.43662067[source]▶
I would like to know how he manages to appear, in every single photo I see of him, to look slightly but unmistakenly... moist, or at least sweaty.
replies(7): >>43662147 #>>43662169 #>>43662183 #>>43662210 #>>43662253 #>>43662478 #>>43664196 #
3. bryanrasmussen ◴[12 Apr 25 07:22 UTC] No.43662147[source]▶
People keep assassinating him, and clones always look a bit moist the first day out of the pod.
replies(1): >>43662473 #
4. omnimus ◴[12 Apr 25 07:26 UTC] No.43662169[source]▶
Peter Thiel is the like that too. Hyperhidrosis is in some people common sideffect of drugs.
5. hlynurd ◴[12 Apr 25 07:29 UTC] No.43662183[source]▶
I often look moist after I use a moisturizer.
6. ◴[12 Apr 25 07:40 UTC] No.43662244[source]▶
7. falcor84 ◴[12 Apr 25 08:22 UTC] No.43662473{3}[source]▶
Are the assassinations because of something we already know about? some new advance that is still under wraps? or is it time travelers with knowledge about what he will do if left unchecked?
8. mvdtnz ◴[12 Apr 25 08:23 UTC] No.43662478[source]▶
He's certainly a damp boy.
9. throw1223323 ◴[12 Apr 25 09:13 UTC] No.43662744[source]▶
Based on his interview with Joe Rogan, he has absolutely no imagination about what it means if humans actually manage to build general AI. Rogan basically ends up introducting him to some basic ideas about transhumanism.

To me, he is a finance bro grifter who lucked into his current position. Without Ilya he would still be peddling WorldCoin.

replies(4): >>43662912 #>>43663082 #>>43663857 #>>43668872 #
10. ramraj07 ◴[12 Apr 25 09:45 UTC] No.43662912[source]▶
Coming up next: dumb and dumber schools Noam Chomsky on modern philosophy...
replies(1): >>43663084 #
11. viraptor ◴[12 Apr 25 10:20 UTC] No.43663082[source]▶
There's weirdly many people who touch on the work around transhumanism but never heard the word before. There's a video of geohot basically talking about that idea, then someone from the audience mentions the name... and geohotz is confused. I'm honestly surprised.
replies(1): >>43665002 #
12. kleiba ◴[12 Apr 25 10:20 UTC] No.43663084{3}[source]▶
Almost: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOIM1_xOSro
13. sundarurfriend ◴[12 Apr 25 10:25 UTC] No.43663124[source]▶
It's a rabbit hole with many layers (levels?), but this is a good starting point and gateway to related information:

Key Facts from "The Secrets and Misdirection Behind Sam Altman's Firing from OpenAI": https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/25EgRNWcY6PM3fWZh/openai-12-...

14. JKCalhoun ◴[12 Apr 25 12:39 UTC] No.43663857[source]▶
> who lucked into his current position

Which can be said for most of the survivorship-biased "greats" we talk about. Right time, right place.

(Although to be fair — and we can think of the Two Steves, or Bill and Paul — there are often a number of people at the right time and right place — so somehow the few we still talk about knew to take advantage of that right time and right place.)

replies(1): >>43668863 #
15. derwiki ◴[12 Apr 25 13:29 UTC] No.43664196[source]▶
It’s a side effect of Ibogaine, the same drug that it was rumored Ed Muskie was on in the ‘72 campaign.
16. tim333 ◴[12 Apr 25 15:04 UTC] No.43665002{3}[source]▶
The transhumanists tended to be philosopher types, the name coming from this kind of idea of humanism:

>Humanism is a philosophical stance that emphasizes the individual and social potential, and agency of human beings, whom it considers the starting point for serious moral and philosophical inquiry. (wikipedia)

Whereas the other lot are often engineers / compsci / business people building stuff.

17. bobxmax ◴[12 Apr 25 23:49 UTC] No.43668863{3}[source]▶
it's weird how nobodies will always tell themselves succesful people got there by sheer blind luck

yet they can never seem to explain why those succesful people all seem to have similar traits in terms of work ethic and intelligence

you'd think there would be a bunch of lazy slackers making it big in tech but alas

replies(1): >>43669977 #
18. bobxmax ◴[12 Apr 25 23:51 UTC] No.43668872[source]▶
yeah because you're a hacker news poster lol

same audience who think Jobs is a grifter and Woz is the true reason for Apple's success

19. mekoka ◴[13 Apr 25 03:58 UTC] No.43669977{4}[source]▶
I think you might have it backward. Luck here implies starting with exactly the same work ethic and abilities as millions of other people that all hope to one day see their numbers come up in the lottery of limited opportunities. It's not to say that successful people start off as lazy slackers as you say, but if you were to observe one such lazy slacker who's made a half-assed effort at building something that even just accidentally turned out to be a success, you might see that rare modicum of validation fuel them enough that the motivation transforms them into a workhorse. Often time, when the biography is written, lines are slightly redrawn to project the post-success persona back a few years pre-success. A completely different recounting of history thus ensues. Usually one where there was blood, sweat, and fire involved to get to that first ticket.
replies(1): >>43671893 #
20. bobxmax ◴[13 Apr 25 11:07 UTC] No.43671893{5}[source]▶
so you've moved the goalposts even further now and speculate that succesful people started out as slackers, got lucky, and that luck made them work harder

as an Asian, it amazes me how far Americans and Europeans will go to avoid a hard days work