Funny how AI has supposedly surpassed the greatest scientists, yet the greatest scientific discovery here is always announced by the guy selling subscriptions. If it really is that smart, perhaps it could explain to Sam the difference between a peer reviewed breakthrough and a product launch.
If it really is that smart, perhaps it could explain to Sam the difference between a peer reviewed breakthrough and a product launch.
911, I’d like to report a murder.
High-fiving AI. i’m done with this fucking place.
To be fair to AI, the problem with Sam and OpenAI was always PEBKAC.
I’m sorry, Sam. I can only explain it to you. I can’t understand it for you, as well.
You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can’t make him think.
Somehow I’ve not seen this before. Love it!
Love it but still using “horse” for a more gender neutral jibe.
You can lead someone to knowledge, but you can’t make them think.
We have a grammar for that.
Horse is more derogatory
Sure. But that wasn’t the stated goal.
So can man be
I feel like if sam just fucked off. Ai would be smarter, more useful, and less problematic basically over night.
Maybe it could explain to Sam how a statistical model cannot approximate 101% accuracy to the sample data.
Please Sam, put the AI in charge of your company. Pretty please
If he really believed what he said, he would. But he knows he’s just talking shit
If it’s so smart, maybe they should ask it to come up with a viable business strategy, because he sure as hell hasn’t figured it out, lol.
“We have no current plans to make revenue. We have no idea how we may one day generate revenue. We have made a soft promise to investors that once we’ve built this sort of generally intelligent system, basically we will ask it to figure out a way to generate an investment return for you.” - Sam Altman
What a fucking stupid grift that is, how are they falling for it?
AI is a deep learning algorithm used for information retrieval with dubious accuracy.
It doesn’t think. It has no awareness or understanding. It’s not intelligent. It certainly can’t come up with something new or creative like an intelligent person can.
In fairness, it can combine existing information in a way no person thought to, which is large part of working as a scientist.
It can be a powerful interdisciplinary connector, covering the blind spots of human science. Not many people can be knowledgeable in several frontier fields at once. AI can, so it will definitely help. But yes, verifying output is essential.
it mostly generates bullshit that will waste time and money.
You may like this. “From a distance, Portrait of Edmond de Belamy, which has just sold at Christie’s in New York for $432,000 (£337,000), looks almost plausible. Up close, however, the paintwork becomes a grid of mechanical-looking dots, the man’s face a golden blur with black holes for eyes. Look into those eyes. They show no sign of feeling or life. Did a computer make this? The answer is yes. The first artwork generated by AI to be sold at Christie’s, its impressive price would seem to suggest that in future we will get computers to make art for us. Robot van Gogh will harmlessly cut its ear off and robot Picasso will be a genius, minus the misogyny. Is this the future AI art visionaries such as the French collective Obvious, which programmed this “painter” by getting it to compare its own work with 15,000 pre-20th century portraits, have in mind? Or are they just, God forbid, making a fast buck from gullible art collectors? Because believing the algorithm that knocked this up to be in any meaningful way an “artist” is like thinking your voice-interaction programme is out to get you. Dream on. Computers would need to replicate human consciousness before they could replicate the funny thing humans do called “art”. Art is a way in which human consciousness expresses itself, and is equally true of the earliest cave art, Rembrandt’s portraits and Duchamp’s urinal. And that is what is missing from Portrait of Edmond Bellamy. Art is a way humans communicate ideas, perceptions and feelings to each other. It has no existence outside the human passion to communicate. So in what meaningful sense can an AI replica of certain physical traits of old master paintings be called art? For a robot to really make art, it would need an autonomous mind that was emotional as well as rational. No AI developer has yet claimed to be anywhere near achieving that and if they ever do, their creation will probably have better things to do than paint portraits – like destroy humanity. Maybe afterwards robots will invent their own kind of art, but it won’t be some poor pastiche of human genius. It will be beyond anything we organics could imagine." guardian ai generated portrait.docx
And when we do create artificial intelligence capable of wants, needs, personal expression, individuality, and emotional depth, using them as robots means we’ve created our own mechanical race of slaves.
Measure of a Man.
Anyway, I don’t understand why you’re getting down voted.
Ya, Sam, call me when the AI knows what questions to ask that it came up with on its own rather than just scraping…
I believe AI is smarter than Sam Altman.
Sam Altman believes he is smarter than scientists.
The more pants-on-head crazy the claims are, the more desperate they are.
I’ll believe it when I hear it from the brightest human scientists, not the glorified salesman who would ironically be perfectly replaced by AI.
LLMs are proof that management isn’t meritocratic.
Is it because he thinks he is the brightest human scientist, but it turns out he’s actually pretty stupid?
yes
You can tell how competent someone is at something by how good they think an LLM is at that thing.
Ai is pretty good at sucking proverbial and metaphorical dick.
Also generating subtitles for my mother’s foreign films I guess?
It’s painfully just ok at most tasks. It’s a someone useful tool at a local level with small models doing extremely narrow tasks.
But anyone who thinks these giant models are remotely beyond just a glorified over priced hobby toy is… Questionably sane.
They are fun to play with in the same sorta way playing with explosives is.
He is anything else than stupid. Actually dangerous (unless they finally stop throwing insane amounts of money at him year after year)
AI is not smarter than the best scientist. It’s just smarter than Sam Altman. But that’s partially because Sam Altman is regressing due to his over reliance on AI.
It’s the best monkey at the typewriter.
Since they just lost a lot of millions last week, they need a new grift
Sam Altman has been credibly accused of raping his sister.
…not going anywhere with this, just felt compelled to share.
What makes it credible?
An under-oath deposition by the alleged victim in which she affirmed Altman sexually abused her starting when she was age 3 and lasting until she was age 12.
There are also countless former associates of Altman who have gone on record stating that he’s a compulsive liar and narcissist. That’s obviously not direct evidence of anything, but it establishes a clear pattern of untrustworthy and potentially abusive behavior from Altman.
The civil case was ultimately dismissed because the alleged victim refused to submit to an independent medical examination requested by the Judge… but such refusals are extremely common among people who have been traumatized by sexual abuse and don’t want some stranger poking around their private parts.
How do you define credible in this context?
And how do you know that she and/or the former associates don’t lie?
Do you mean an medical examination years after the abuse happened? What is that supposed to accomplish?
A victim giving a deposition under oath is considered a credible accusation on its face.
I’ve never understood how a oath somehow creates a form of credibility with out some other proof to back it up
It’s still just words. I know lying under oath is a crime and all that. But when most shit just gets settled and rarely actually has teeth towards the rich or famous.
It feels like an oath is just a pretend make believe thing that only the deranged actually think is real.
OK.
So they just gonna fire all their AI engineers and replace them with AI now, right?
Yours is the first valid argument, after reading previous 13, all of which were, unfortunately, more up-voted than yours.
Edit : Now, having read all 38 main comments, yours is the only one that has real valid logic.
These types of people don’t know the difference between having an answer and understanding. It’s why when AI solves a long running math problem, it’s practically useless to us.
