Machine Learning

1 readers

1 users here now

Community Rules:

Be nice. No offensive behavior, insults or attacks: we encourage a diverse community in which members feel safe and have a voice.
Make your post clear and comprehensive: posts that lack insight or effort will be removed. (ex: questions which are easily googled)
Beginner or career related questions go elsewhere. This community is focused in discussion of research and new projects that advance the state-of-the-art.
Limit self-promotion. Comments and posts should be first and foremost about topics of interest to ML observers and practitioners. Limited self-promotion is tolerated, but the sub is not here as merely a source for free advertisement. Such posts will be removed at the discretion of the mods.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

communick@academy.garden

[D] Exclusive: Sam Altman's ouster at OpenAI was precipitated by letter to board about AI breakthrough (alien.top)

submitted 1 year ago by blabboy@alien.top to c/machinelearning@academy.garden

67 comments fedilink hide all child comments

According to one of the sources, long-time executive Mira Murati told employees on Wednesday that a letter about the AI breakthrough called Q* (pronounced Q-Star), precipitated the board's actions.

The maker of ChatGPT had made progress on Q*, which some internally believe could be a breakthrough in the startup's search for superintelligence, also known as artificial general intelligence (AGI), one of the people told Reuters. OpenAI defines AGI as AI systems that are smarter than humans.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/sam-altmans-ouster-openai-was-precipitated-by-letter-board-about-ai-breakthrough-2023-11-22/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] AdWestern1314@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago

I am not saying AGI is impossible but the arguments that we are close to achieving it sounds more like wishful thinking.

A couple of questions/comments I have:

People assume that the development is exponential or at least linear but that is not necessarily true - it depends on what is possible to do with the resources we have and the limitations of the physical world we live in.
GPT-4 has the appearance of being intelligent rather than being intelligent. How will we be able to tell the difference? What will prevent us from being fooled in a similar way with future systems?
Isn’t there an issue with using benchmarks that has been around for a while to measure the performance of AI systems? Are we not, perhaps unconsciously, improving the scores on these tests rather than improving the system?
Without understanding our own intelligence (or lack of), how are we going to understand AI?
What is the goal with AI?