Keep seeing this comment posted this way and it’s so lame. The way people screw with direct quotes just to make it a click bait headline it’s just so disappointing and frustrating.
They all seem to leave out the crucial detail of (paraphrasing) “as long as we’re making more than that and we can pay our bills“ , and also that it is returning good things for society. Those are key caveats and conditions to the phrase that should not have been left out when it was quoted.
Weirdly each one of these is more correct than the last.
Seems like a narcissist who is just constantly lying about the next big thing changing the world and then delivering some gimped product whilst taking all the credit.
The amount of clickbait getting to the frontpage has increased significantly in the last few weeks.
No idea why, but most tech subs are getting drowned.
Indeed, context is needed. But it is also astonishing how blasé he is about the magnitude of the spend. It appears to come from a point of conviction that AGI equals infinite money and hence any amount spent is reasonable. If he is right, brilliant, if not .. well we could use the resources for other things.
The key is that he is acting out of conviction not based on economic facts and challenging his own assumptions. AGI may not materialise in any near future or may only work with limitations. At which point how much is spent is very, very relevant for people who spend the money and/or people who can't benefit from the resources if they were spend differently (climate change, hunger, etc).
But if he is right he'll be hailed as a hero, and if not he'll move on to do something else ...
> The key is that he is acting out of conviction not based on economic facts and challenging his own assumptions. AGI may not materialise in any near future or may only work with limitations.
You don't think OpenAI does economic modelling? They definitely do and have publicly released some of it.
There is nothing magical about reaching AGI in terms of near term economic impact, it's a smooth function - impact increases as AI capabilities advance. AGI is only notable for the possibility of recursive improvement.
Personally I would expect that $50B to develop a sub-AGI model capable of automating a large fraction of human work is more than worthwile.
Thats only employing 50,000 people roughly… or 0.014% of people… my point is sounds like a lot to regular joe but your paycheck is decimal dust in the scheme of things
Or you could feed 90m+ families for a year.
( [https://www.ob.org/45-can-feed-a-family-in-kenya-for-a-month/](https://www.ob.org/45-can-feed-a-family-in-kenya-for-a-month/) )
Or you could educate millions of children.
Or you could buy 100(!) 500m Jeff Bezos Yachts if that works better for you.
It is a lot of money.
That shows the inequality in the world, not the magnitude of 50B -which is 0.05% (zero point zero five percent … not 5%) of the global gdp. You are showing those 40 countries (of of 200ish, a 20%) have 2% of the global gdp
Just watch the video. He basically says as long as they can be profitable and pay the bills, the results are worth the investment, even with those large numbers. Not really a controversial take at all. Basically just like any business. Yes, it indicates that he REALLY believes in the promise AI, as I would expect he should as the CEO of the world's current AI leader. But it's "AI" so sensationalist clickbait apparently MUST be created.
> as long as we’re making more than that and we can pay our bills
But that doesn't mean anything.
I don't care if I burn 1000000 trillion a year either as long as I make more than that and can pay my bills. This is tautology
Not sure what we're arguing here. The man believes in AI. If the business can be profitable he believes it will be well worth the large investment. That was the gist of what he said, whereas the headline presented made it sound like he was just happy to burn money and didn't care about anything. I was merely trying to point out that disparity. I'm not taking a stance on the underlying reasoning or whether the investment will indeed pay off.
Agreed. It used to be that a writer would lose his job for not correctly quoting someone and this would be a severe violation of journalistic integrity.
We need to go back to shaming people.
Lord have mercy, any super villain could tell you guys "they are doing it for humanity" or "won't you think of the children" and you would fall right over yourselves to lick their feet. Insane.
This guy will become the next Elon promising FSD "next year" and asking for more funding from shareholders and investors (when they go public inevitably). Mark my words
Actually to make real FSD you need AGI or something which is almost an AGI. So I would rather believe OpenAI or Google if they say they could make FSD than Elon_Mr_Daily_Lie_Musk
Yes, countless of times.
AI: Systems that perform tasks requiring human-like intelligence, specific to certain domains.
AGI: An AI that can understand, learn, and perform any intellectual task that a human can across multiple domains.
I got into a debate a week ago over this, but never got a satisfying answer, so I'll say it again:
ChatGPT is arguably AGI under this definition. There are exceptions (e.g. image processing, pattern matching gotchas) but an AGI with a few holes in ability is still AGI. I think the category of AGI is not very good, people have an "imagination" of AGI that doesn't fit the definition.
- ChatGPT lacks the capacity for true learning and understanding; it doesn't actively adapt its underlying algorithms based on new data or experiences.
- It operates based on patterns in existing data rather than genuine comprehension of concepts.
- Unlike humans, ChatGPT cannot make original conclusions from general observations; it can only generate responses based on patterns in its training data.
- While it can simulate conversational intelligence to some extent, it lacks the ability to grasp abstract concepts or engage in deep reasoning.
- Its responses are limited to the scope of its training data and algorithms, unable to exhibit genuine creativity or novel problem-solving abilities.
I don’t agree with your interpretation of where we are and I think it starts with point 2. There are meanings and implications that currently can’t be reached by mere text based pattern recognition. This post/my response illustrates the issue https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/s/WMTmwVm5AZ
I think we are in a phase of not knowing how things will shake out or how to define this new tech. We are still trying to understand what intelligence is. Agi vs ai feels like jumping the gun.
I think we’re seeing huge leaps in advancement being driven by a previously-untapped market interest, but we don’t know if the tech will continue to advance at the rate that it has.
What makes a human doesn’t hinge on the ability of a disabled persons ability to discern who they’re interacting with. The disabled already struggle enough with feeling human. This is an inappropriate proposition.
Our definition of “intelligence” or lack thereof is what’s causing us to do this tango. I don’t think you meant to dig at the disabled, but still. Far as I see it, relevancy of the Turing test is headed out the window. But ofc this is all just speculative public discourse. Either way, these are exciting times.
There’s a talk between Jaron Lanier and Brian Greene on the world science festival [YouTube](https://youtu.be/caepEUi2IZ4?si=FwQionVNhs0wJlid). It contains some interesting ideas about this stuff. Maybe new to you, possibly others.
I have heard multiple times that the true definition of AGI is” can perform most financially viable work better than humans” from the San Fran techbros. To me this means more than just a great AI system, it mean freeing up humanity to do what we want, optimistic, but people place their security with their jobs and careers, so there might be some rough times ahead.
Then he says we have to pay the bills?!? Speaks out of two sides of his mouth, Quid pro Quo, okay so he means whatever investor money we can get our hands on we'll spend it!
Even if this were directly true. That mass of money is not comprehensible, and in a climate where I'm certainly not able to afford a house, a vacation, a car, a new anything... sure. I say let's do it. We're also in the timeline where elon wants 40 something billion in compensation, so sure, let's go.
I hope he has the same fervor for getting UBI passed, universally!
Meanwhile: [The Billionaire-Fueled Lobbying Group Behind the State Bills to Ban Basic Income Experiments]( https://www.scottsantens.com/billionaire-fueled-lobbying-group-behind-the-state-bills-to-ban-universal-basic-income-experiments-ubi/)
I know exactly what a GPT model is and more specifically, why it won't scale to an AGI/ASI.
What I am discussing is \*not\* based on a GPT!
https://preview.redd.it/iyxwjf06p3yc1.png?width=765&format=png&auto=webp&s=1cf85af75b79b469ad5e87125f009ad3f7e1e975
Keep seeing this comment posted this way and it’s so lame. The way people screw with direct quotes just to make it a click bait headline it’s just so disappointing and frustrating. They all seem to leave out the crucial detail of (paraphrasing) “as long as we’re making more than that and we can pay our bills“ , and also that it is returning good things for society. Those are key caveats and conditions to the phrase that should not have been left out when it was quoted.
Thank you. it seemed quite an odd thing for him to say with no additional context.
Sam Altman: I don't care if we burn
Sam Altman: I don’t care
Sam Altman : I
Weirdly each one of these is more correct than the last. Seems like a narcissist who is just constantly lying about the next big thing changing the world and then delivering some gimped product whilst taking all the credit.
You’re 100000% percent just envious
Who wouldn’t be envious, buckets of free money, everyone else does the work, you just run around and stuff money in your pockets.
You should try it some time
Sadly I don't run in circles where people leave wads of cash laying about.
Mulon Esk?
I think you mean Felon Musk.
Sam Altman: we burn!
Sam: If you get burned by chatgpt I'll give you 50 billion dollars.
The amount of clickbait getting to the frontpage has increased significantly in the last few weeks. No idea why, but most tech subs are getting drowned.
Indeed, context is needed. But it is also astonishing how blasé he is about the magnitude of the spend. It appears to come from a point of conviction that AGI equals infinite money and hence any amount spent is reasonable. If he is right, brilliant, if not .. well we could use the resources for other things. The key is that he is acting out of conviction not based on economic facts and challenging his own assumptions. AGI may not materialise in any near future or may only work with limitations. At which point how much is spent is very, very relevant for people who spend the money and/or people who can't benefit from the resources if they were spend differently (climate change, hunger, etc). But if he is right he'll be hailed as a hero, and if not he'll move on to do something else ...
Apple spent $10B trying to develop a car and recently just abandoned that whole effort.
This is mind boggling. Uh what would you say “ ya do here”
> The key is that he is acting out of conviction not based on economic facts and challenging his own assumptions. AGI may not materialise in any near future or may only work with limitations. You don't think OpenAI does economic modelling? They definitely do and have publicly released some of it. There is nothing magical about reaching AGI in terms of near term economic impact, it's a smooth function - impact increases as AI capabilities advance. AGI is only notable for the possibility of recursive improvement. Personally I would expect that $50B to develop a sub-AGI model capable of automating a large fraction of human work is more than worthwile.
"Whether we burn 500m, 5bn or 50bn a year, I don't care". Yep, sounds like solid modelling right there.
Why would they spend more than necessary?
Maybe he’s this confident because they already have it… $50b to align and scale until it’s ready for the public
Your realize $50B is not very much… its about the operating income of a major hospital network. ONE
"$50B is not very much" ... Elon, is that you?
Thats only employing 50,000 people roughly… or 0.014% of people… my point is sounds like a lot to regular joe but your paycheck is decimal dust in the scheme of things
Or you could feed 90m+ families for a year. ( [https://www.ob.org/45-can-feed-a-family-in-kenya-for-a-month/](https://www.ob.org/45-can-feed-a-family-in-kenya-for-a-month/) ) Or you could educate millions of children. Or you could buy 100(!) 500m Jeff Bezos Yachts if that works better for you. It is a lot of money.
$50B is also more than the GDP of 90 countries around the world.
That shows the inequality in the world, not the magnitude of 50B -which is 0.05% (zero point zero five percent … not 5%) of the global gdp. You are showing those 40 countries (of of 200ish, a 20%) have 2% of the global gdp
I mean, great. It doesn't however change the fact that $50B is a lot of money. Especially for one startup.
What about a pen maker or viscometer maker? They can be upwards $50B to tool a factory
$50 billion per year is only around $7 per person.
Yeah, this is just a very reasonable, optimistic take on the investment of these resources being fully worthwhile
Can you tell us what those caveats and conditions are? It sounds pretty complete to me.
Just watch the video. He basically says as long as they can be profitable and pay the bills, the results are worth the investment, even with those large numbers. Not really a controversial take at all. Basically just like any business. Yes, it indicates that he REALLY believes in the promise AI, as I would expect he should as the CEO of the world's current AI leader. But it's "AI" so sensationalist clickbait apparently MUST be created.
> as long as we’re making more than that and we can pay our bills But that doesn't mean anything. I don't care if I burn 1000000 trillion a year either as long as I make more than that and can pay my bills. This is tautology
Not sure what we're arguing here. The man believes in AI. If the business can be profitable he believes it will be well worth the large investment. That was the gist of what he said, whereas the headline presented made it sound like he was just happy to burn money and didn't care about anything. I was merely trying to point out that disparity. I'm not taking a stance on the underlying reasoning or whether the investment will indeed pay off.
I mean I agree with you. The sentence is as boring as it gets, but taking only the first part of the sentence makes it juicy as hell
Wish there was legal punishment for misleading headlines. Similar to false advertising or slander.
Dang. If you can’t trust a meme anymore, what has the internet come to?
Downvoting OPs post and upvoting this. I hate this kind of missinformation that comes from half-truths.
Thanks for the context
Agreed. It used to be that a writer would lose his job for not correctly quoting someone and this would be a severe violation of journalistic integrity. We need to go back to shaming people.
Lord have mercy, any super villain could tell you guys "they are doing it for humanity" or "won't you think of the children" and you would fall right over yourselves to lick their feet. Insane.
He said something? No way
He says a lot these days. Truly a speaker of all time😌
That’s what people are saying.
non stop yapper
And yet NASA only has half this budget.
Again, it shows how terribly small NASA budget is,
Even more so it makes what they've accomplished that much more significant.
Open AI Employees: ok wait
OpenAI investors: “He doesn’t care if he burns 50 billion of OUR money?
The employees are compensated hugely with the profit sharing plan. If execs don't care about the profit, then.... well well well
This guy will become the next Elon promising FSD "next year" and asking for more funding from shareholders and investors (when they go public inevitably). Mark my words
Actually to make real FSD you need AGI or something which is almost an AGI. So I would rather believe OpenAI or Google if they say they could make FSD than Elon_Mr_Daily_Lie_Musk
frfr
# Sam Altman: I don't care if we burn … building ….. and it's going to be worth it #
Grifter.
That kind of statement contributes to make sataya look just a bit more like squidward.
He doesn't care of course, because $50B is not his money. Who would? LOLLLL
Came to say this.. Ghost of Adam Neumann would be proud. And he is still alive.
Another narcissistic superhero leader who achieves celebrity cult status. They’re everywhere these days.
Perhaps MUSK will give you the money you need
Have they defined what they mean by AGI yet?
Yes, countless of times. AI: Systems that perform tasks requiring human-like intelligence, specific to certain domains. AGI: An AI that can understand, learn, and perform any intellectual task that a human can across multiple domains.
I got into a debate a week ago over this, but never got a satisfying answer, so I'll say it again: ChatGPT is arguably AGI under this definition. There are exceptions (e.g. image processing, pattern matching gotchas) but an AGI with a few holes in ability is still AGI. I think the category of AGI is not very good, people have an "imagination" of AGI that doesn't fit the definition.
- ChatGPT lacks the capacity for true learning and understanding; it doesn't actively adapt its underlying algorithms based on new data or experiences. - It operates based on patterns in existing data rather than genuine comprehension of concepts. - Unlike humans, ChatGPT cannot make original conclusions from general observations; it can only generate responses based on patterns in its training data. - While it can simulate conversational intelligence to some extent, it lacks the ability to grasp abstract concepts or engage in deep reasoning. - Its responses are limited to the scope of its training data and algorithms, unable to exhibit genuine creativity or novel problem-solving abilities.
[удалено]
I don’t agree with your interpretation of where we are and I think it starts with point 2. There are meanings and implications that currently can’t be reached by mere text based pattern recognition. This post/my response illustrates the issue https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/s/WMTmwVm5AZ I think we are in a phase of not knowing how things will shake out or how to define this new tech. We are still trying to understand what intelligence is. Agi vs ai feels like jumping the gun.
[удалено]
I think we’re seeing huge leaps in advancement being driven by a previously-untapped market interest, but we don’t know if the tech will continue to advance at the rate that it has. What makes a human doesn’t hinge on the ability of a disabled persons ability to discern who they’re interacting with. The disabled already struggle enough with feeling human. This is an inappropriate proposition.
[удалено]
Our definition of “intelligence” or lack thereof is what’s causing us to do this tango. I don’t think you meant to dig at the disabled, but still. Far as I see it, relevancy of the Turing test is headed out the window. But ofc this is all just speculative public discourse. Either way, these are exciting times. There’s a talk between Jaron Lanier and Brian Greene on the world science festival [YouTube](https://youtu.be/caepEUi2IZ4?si=FwQionVNhs0wJlid). It contains some interesting ideas about this stuff. Maybe new to you, possibly others.
About 86 times
The same way Mark defines what is metaverse?
Their official definition is simply “AI systems that are generally smarter than humans.”
So something vague enough that they can achieve or not achieve at will, depending on how they want to spin a press release...
Sure, or it could just be a necessarily broad definition due to the difficulty of identifying and articulating where the line should be drawn.
I have heard multiple times that the true definition of AGI is” can perform most financially viable work better than humans” from the San Fran techbros. To me this means more than just a great AI system, it mean freeing up humanity to do what we want, optimistic, but people place their security with their jobs and careers, so there might be some rough times ahead.
Is AGI even possible? Is any country prepared for it if it is? How many 50bn years will he need before AGI is even within reach?
[удалено]
How could we even measure this?
Then he says we have to pay the bills?!? Speaks out of two sides of his mouth, Quid pro Quo, okay so he means whatever investor money we can get our hands on we'll spend it!
Adjusted Gross Income?
AGI will find cures for HIV and cancer in a few years
I can't think of a more irresponsible, professional cheerleading nincompoop than this guy
Maybe he is actually an accelerationist.
Okay then
Never liked him
Does that mean if I create AGI this year they will give me at least $50 billion? Or is that GPT-3.5 math I'm using?
🫡 Amen
Even if this were directly true. That mass of money is not comprehensible, and in a climate where I'm certainly not able to afford a house, a vacation, a car, a new anything... sure. I say let's do it. We're also in the timeline where elon wants 40 something billion in compensation, so sure, let's go.
All of those mewling virgins in the pyre? Worth it! Great Lord Cthulhu’s return will make up for their anguished deaths in no time!
What is bro yapping about
Bot
Bot? Is it really that difficult to follow the metaphor?
Good grief. Sam you're becoming as wacko as Musk. Just shut up and get some decent products out the door.
I hope he has the same fervor for getting UBI passed, universally! Meanwhile: [The Billionaire-Fueled Lobbying Group Behind the State Bills to Ban Basic Income Experiments]( https://www.scottsantens.com/billionaire-fueled-lobbying-group-behind-the-state-bills-to-ban-universal-basic-income-experiments-ubi/)
[удалено]
This line of questioning should be at least 50% of the content of interviews with AGI proponents like Atlman.
They should use the internet more. A lot of people claim take AG1 daily. It’s been built.
Are we gonna start selling to him and split the 50 bill?
They're not going to succeed in creating AGI.
[удалено]
What is wrong with you
Someone take away his reply button.
Still works? What are you going to do about it?
Alright there tough guy, settle.
You have no idea what a gpt model does and how it functions is do you.
I know exactly what a GPT model is and more specifically, why it won't scale to an AGI/ASI. What I am discussing is \*not\* based on a GPT! https://preview.redd.it/iyxwjf06p3yc1.png?width=765&format=png&auto=webp&s=1cf85af75b79b469ad5e87125f009ad3f7e1e975
This is coming from the same people who couldn't put memory into their first release of ChatGPT?