OpenAI seeks to unlock investment by ditching 'AGI' clause with Microsoft

https://www.ft.com/content/2c14b89c-f363-4c2a-9dfc-13023b6bce65

by tim333 • 2 years ago

52 76 2 years ago

tim3336• 2 years ago

Archive version https://archive.ph/pmudc

tim3336• 2 years ago

“We’ve also said that our intention is to treat AGI as a mile marker along the way. We’ve left ourselves some flexibility because we don’t know what will happen,” added Altman

Musk accusing Altman of “deceit of Shakespearean proportions.”

F7F7F7• 2 years ago

I’ve had AI influencers reaching out to inquire about the bridge I have for sale, everyday for the past 2 years.

We’ll never see AGI in its original definition in our lifetimes. It doesn’t take being a rocket…company buying billionaire.

bbor2• 2 years ago

He started the company - I’m no Elon fan myself, but that’s the case. Also, you’re disagreeing with him anyway; he’s saying that starting a company who’s defining purpose was to avoid a for-profit race to AGI and then immediately pivot to ruthless for-profit competition as soon as you have a real shot at your goal (+ an advantage) is deceptive.

And yeah, I’ve gotta give it to him: tragic. Tho I guess that’s “Homeric” or “Hellenic” deceit?

ToucanLoucan5• 2 years ago

I wouldn't be comfortable saying we'll never see AGI in our lifetimes. I've seen incredible progress since I was a kiddo and computers were these huge machines that took up an entire desk, not to mention that only a decade prior to that, they were machines that took up entire warehouses. And now, I carry around a computer who's primary function is organizing my life and helping me kill time, and it has hundreds of times more power stuffed into a little rectangle that runs the entire day in my pocket. I wouldn't say it's impossible by any stretch.

That said, I think it strains the hell out of credulity to say a fancy chatbot is getting anywhere close to that, especially since we apparently had to give it every word mankind has written up to this point just to get it to a stage of "mostly good at grammar, still makes tons of shit up." I just don't think this is the route there.

CamperBob23• 2 years ago

We’ll never see AGI in its original definition in our lifetimes. It doesn’t take being a rocket…company buying billionaire.

No, because whenever somebody says they've achieved it, someone else -- maybe you -- will say they haven't. The question will never be settled to everyone's satisfaction.

We don't know what intelligence is, or how to measure it objectively, much less how to define "general intelligence." So it's hard to say whether current approaches to AI will get there or not.

I see it as a tool to be used by people, one that may evolve into the most powerful tool we've ever built. I don't find the question of "intelligence" all that interesting.

IshKebab• 2 years ago

Bold prediction. Only 15 years ago state of the art was barely more than recognising digits. Now you can have a full on voice conversation with an AI.

ALittleLight• 2 years ago

We have AGI, in it's original definition, now - it's just human level rather than superhuman.

ChatGPT, without being specifically programmed to, can summarize a text, write a program, play chess, explain a joke, translate, explain or create a poem, and just handle arbitrary inputs in text. On some measures ChatGPT is better than human, on some measures, like ARC, it's worse - but even there it's not worse than the worst human.

ChatGPT is artificial, certainly, general, in the sense that it handles a wide range of inputs, and intelligent in the sense that it can solve problems and make predictions.

The intelligence of LLMs is likely to increase in the near term future - better hardware, better training, distilling to smaller models, architecture improvements, better augmentations (like RAG), better use of test time computer etc.

heresie-dabord2• 2 years ago

“deceit of Shakespearean proportions.”

It is true that some of Shakespeare's characters exhibit grotesque exaggerations of human frailties. They go mad with ambition, cruelty, and delusion, imposing their whims on victims around them. They typically show no sign of compunction until they have brought themselves to a miserable, self-inflicted end in tragedy.

It is ironic to read such recriminations from this particular character.

neilv• 2 years ago

Non-paywall summary: https://www.reuters.com/technology/openai-seeks-unlock-inves...

IAmGraydon• 2 years ago

As per the current terms, when OpenAI creates AGI - defined as a "highly autonomous system that outperforms humans at most economically valuable work" - Microsoft's access to such a technology would be void.

That’s their definition of AGI? What does that have to do with actual intelligence?

bbor2• 2 years ago

It’s the so called “economic” definition. You’re absolutely right to call out that it’s not very philosophically valuable, but they were trying to be pragmatic — and it was kinda hard to imagine, anyway.

Of course it’s being thrown out the window now that money’s on the line… drives one to cynicism! No wonder Altman is a paranoid prepper.

heresie-dabord2• 2 years ago

"highly autonomous system that outperforms humans at most economically valuable work"

As you note, this has nothing to do with actual intelligence, but with the for-profit calculus.

The disturbing aspect of such a definition is that economically-valuable work/activity may be grossly unsustainable and directly detrimental.

etna_ramequin• 2 years ago

That’s a self-defeating definition. Work that can be automated at no marginal cost is economically worthless.

Edit for clarity: “worthless” as in “no value add”, its worth is only capital investment and energy input.

kelseyfrog• 2 years ago

Work that can be automated is worth exactly at the price it's sold at, not at what it costs. Besides, the marginal cost of AGI isn't zero - servers still cost electricity to run.

fixprix• 2 years ago

Imagine someone from 4 years ago reading this comment and being like… what?

paxys2• 2 years ago

By that definition we invented AGI during the industrial revolution.

xelxebar• 2 years ago

How would you, personally, operationalize intelligence? Outperforming humans across a broad range of tasks does sound like general competence. That said, we do want to make sure the tasks are 1) not stupid, and 2) not cherry picked.

Requiring outputs to generate profit is a well-established proxy for human value, even if it's imperfect, and letting the economy pick tasks makes it hard for OpenAI to cherry pick.

I don't know about you, but a reliable ability to generate high value sounds like the kind of intelligence I care about.

On the meta-level, I think disagreements like this about "actual intelligence" and "really conscious" do a good job of showing how out of distribution we are on our human wetware classifiers. The terms really are fuzzy and ill-suited for generating understanding of current AI model behavior, IMHO.

rgbrenner• 2 years ago

GPT is insufficient for AGI. It might be part of the solution one day, but it's fundamentally incapable of bridging the gap by itself.

Despite what Altman/OpenAI says in public, I think he knows this too... That's why they dissolved the Superalignment safety team; and dropping the AGI clause just confirms that.

As time goes on, the "AGI is coming" hype machine gets harder to sustain... and their work/company will begin to be valued on the actual value it produces.

guluarte• 2 years ago

yep, it is just a glorified markov chain

ctoth• 2 years ago

A Stochastic parrot, you stochastically parrot.

bloomingkales3• 2 years ago

This glorified Markov chain educates me better than many things. Why are people so intent on calling bullshit on AI?

It might be a disease honestly.

danielbln2• 2 years ago

For every hype there is the anti-hype, as can be seen in the parent comment. I suppose it's just the way things go, until we've arrived at a more measured place.No, LLMs aren't AGI, not by a long shot. And yes, they are significantly more powerful than Markov chains.

skepticATX2• 2 years ago

What frustrates me the most about OpenAI is that as recently as this summer they were talking non-stop about how gigantic $100 billion models are all you need for AGI and that it’s just a matter of time until we reach this scale. And if you didn’t see this you’re a simpleton who doesn’t understand how exponential curves work.

And then all of the sudden o1 comes out and the narrative from them has shifted entirely. “Obviously massive models aren’t enough to get to AGI, but all we have to do is scale up inference time compute and we’ll get there!” And if you don’t see this you’re just a simpleton.

I wish that OpenAI was called out for this shift more often. Because I haven’t heard even one of their employees acknowledge this. At some point you have to just ignore them until they start actually publishing science that supports their beliefs, but that won’t happen because it doesn’t generate revenue.

iterance• 2 years ago

that won’t happen because it doesn’t generate revenue.

OpenAI made real progress towards a computational understanding of human language and cognition. I'm sorry they have become a for-profit entity (the paperwork lags behind reality, of course). A fiduciary duty does not serve humanity. The quality and credibility of their communications have fallen dramatically.

tim3336• 2 years ago

I don't remember them saying "$100 billion models are all you need for AGI." Don't suppose you have a link?

tredre3• 2 years ago

how gigantic $100 billion models are all you need for AGI and that it’s just a matter of time until we reach this scale. And if you didn’t see this you’re a simpleton who doesn’t understand how exponential curves work.

OpenAI made no such claim. LLM stans on the internet definitely made such claim, that the Stargate project would be AGI and whatnot. But, like crypto bros, GPT hyperfans are just constantly deluded/lying so you shouldn't project their claims onto the corporations they simp for.

That being said, Anthropic's CEO made a claim closer to what you're saying, that a 10-100 billion dollars model would be better than a human in almost every way.

https://www.itpro.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/dol...

TeMPOraL2• 2 years ago

how gigantic $100 billion models are all you need for AGI and that it’s just a matter of time until we reach this scale
Obviously massive models aren’t enough to get to AGI, but all we have to do is scale up inference time compute and we’ll get there!”

Corporate wants you to tell the difference between these two pictures...

Obviously the latter was a step required to make former work. Always has been.

tim3336• 2 years ago

There are other AI models already existing that they could splice on. Bit like they've done with o1. I'm not sure that'll get to AGI but it's hard to say it definitely won't either.

lolinder• 2 years ago

Yep. The current wave of "AI" startups are going to totally burn through the terms "AI" and "AGI", with one of two possible outcomes:

* We enter another "AI Winter" of sorts. People will continue to work on LLMs and other deep learning applications because they're legitimately useful in moderation, but they'll distance themselves from the label "AI" or "AGI" because it will start sounding like "I work on blockchain" does today.

* Both terms will end up completely watered down, with "AI"/"AGI" becoming a catch-all to mean "a computer algorithm of some kind does some magic the user doesn't fully understand"—the new, hipper word for "software". OpenAI will declare victory and we'll have to come up with a new term for an artificial intelligence that can actually do the stuff that AGI was supposed to do.

RaftPeople• 2 years ago

I'm already working on AGI++

tim3336• 2 years ago

I don't really see that myself. The exponential growth in computing will continue and while AGI is not very defined, people mostly think of it as human like or better intelligence, and it'll probably happen regardless of the startups. Though maybe spread over a period of time, for different abilities.

rlupi• 2 years ago

What you describe are two different speeds at which AI/AGI goes through Gartner's hype cycle.

An interesting question is: why do we need hype cycles? Both in general, and what's peculiar about AI and AGI... most ideas don't go through multiple hype cycles. Wasn't one "AI Winter" enough?

Tech hype is a always a kind of hyper-stition, it aims to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. So, tech hype is directed mostly toward those that can decide to invest in tech development to make it fulfill its bright future vision, achieve its destiny.

But with AI/AGI, I think it's different. The impact of tech hype on the now is as important as the bright future that this hype foretell.

AGI tech hype sells future marvels of productivity to the employers and executives, it creates fear for employment in employees and thus it is a form of social control and curbs HR costs and demands in the present moment; and it also has socio-political function as a way for USA, and to a lesser extend to the West at large, to reassert its manifest destiny as the center of world, both in tech prowess but also in terms of cultural hegemony.

The enormous AI datacenter build up in USA creates both first-mover advantages and a first-mover disadvantages. We'll see how it plays out in the next few years.

CityOfThrowaway2• 2 years ago

OpenAI really does seem to embody the idea that all contracts are renegotiable if you're Machiavellian enough.

aleph_minus_one• 2 years ago

OpenAI really does seem to embody the idea that all contracts are renegotiable

Why aren't they renegotiable? Of course you can attempt to renegotiate basically every contract; the question is whether this will be successful or whether this is a good idea. There is no need to appeal to Machiavellianism.

CityOfThrowaway2• 2 years ago

Of course everything is renegotiable. But after reneging on every serious promise you've ever made, I do think it's worthwhile pointing out that this organization is shamelessly Machiavellian. They have mistreated all of their constituencies pretty rapidly!

easeout• 2 years ago

So then, they can claim something is AGI when it isn't, just for the hype benefits, because there's no downside to saying so.

paxys2• 2 years ago

So basically they want to have a "we reached AGI!" marketing moment without pissing off their largest partner/money bank.

iainctduncan• 2 years ago

So does this mean after mocking him for two years they are admitting Gary Marcus is right and that LLMs achieving AGI is complete horseshit?

rvz• 2 years ago

It appears that the definition of "AGI" just means "raise more money" until we do. Even if they never reach "AGI".

Looks like a complete scam.

OpenAI seeks to unlock investment by ditching 'AGI' clause with Microsoft

Related Stories