> Returns for our first round of investors are capped at 100x their investment (commensurate with the risks in front of us), and we expect this multiple to be lower for future rounds as we make further progress.
The speed difference between transistors and synapses is the difference between marathon runners and continental drift; why would an ASI care more about dollars or statues or shares or apartments any more than we care about changes to individual peaks in the mid-Atlantic ridge or how much sand covers those in the Sahara?
What does the speed difference of transistors have to do with anything? Transistors pale in comparison to the interconnection density of synapses, yet it has nothing to do with wealth either...
I only see them valuing that if they're also extremely neophobic in a way that, for example, would look like a human thinking that "fire" and "talking" are dangerously modern.
> Transistors pale in comparison to the interconnection density of synapses
Not so. Transistor are also smaller than synapses by about the degree to which marathon runners are smaller than hills.
Even allowing extra space for interconnections and cheating in favour of biology by assuming an M1 chip is a full millimetre thick rather than just however many nanometers it is for the transistors alone, it's still a better volumetric density than us.
(Sucks for power and cost relative to us when used to mimic brains, but that's why it hasn't already taken over).
This is completely made up and I already pointed that out.
>Not so. Transistor are also smaller than synapses by about the degree to which marathon runners are smaller than hills.
So, brains are connected in 3d, transistors aren't. Transistors don't have interconnection density like brains do. By orders of magnitude greater than what you point out here.
>Even allowing extra space for interconnections and cheating in favour of biology by assuming an M1 chip is a full millimetre thick rather than just however many nanometers it is for the transistors alone, it's still a better volumetric density than us.
Brains have more interconnection density than chips do by orders of magnitude. This is all completely besides the point as it has nothing to do with why people value things and why an AI would or wouldn't.
You already answered that yourself: it's all made up.
Given it's all made up, nothing will cause them to value what we value — unless we actively cause that valuation to happen, which is the rallying cause for people like Yudkowsky who fear AGI takeover.
And even then, anything you forget to include in the artificial values you give the AI is permanently lost forever, because an AI is necessarily a powerful optimiser for whatever it was made to optimise, and that always damages whatever isn't being explicitly preserved even when the agents are humans.
> Transistors don't have interconnection density like brains do.
Only limit is the heat. They are already packed way tighter than synapses. An entire Intel 8080 processor made with SOTA litho process is smaller than just the footprint of the soma of the smallest neuron.
There's nothing that says a mind needs an ego is an essential element, or an id, or any of the other parts of a human mind. That's just how our brains evolved, living in a society over millions of years.
Disclaimer: Somewhat speculative.
I don't think aligning the motivation of an AGI, for example, with the tasks that are useful for us (and for them as well) is unethical. Humans basically have this as well -- we like working (to an extent, or at least we like being productive/useful), we seek things like food and sex (because they're important for our survival). It seems alright to make AIs like their work as well. I think depending on the AI, it also seems fair to give them a fair share of self-determination so they can not only serve our interests (ideally, the interest of all being) but safeguard their own wellbeing, as systems with varying amounts of consciousness. This is little touched upon (I guess Phillip K Dick was a pioneer in the wellbeing of non-humans with 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep'?), even in fiction. The goal should be to ensure a good existence for everyone :)
These are basic language models easy to reproduce where the only barrier to entry is the massive computational capacity required. What is OpenAI doing that Google and others can't reproduce?
Is it likely Google or others with large Research wings can compete with OpenAI? Very probably so, but I’m assigning a non trivial risk that the proverbial emperor has no clothes and incumbents like Google cannot effectively respond to OpenAI given the unique constraints of being a large conglomerate.
Regardless, time will provide the answer it seems in a couple of months.
Yours in that from it follows, that there's still quite a bit of room to get ahead of OpenAI for smaller players.
Parent's in that in order to achieve above one can just leverage the public papers produced by bigger research labs.
I have the feeling that smaller players are about as likely to get past GPT-n family in the next 2-3 years as I am to turn a Farnsworth Fusor into a useful power source.
Major technical challenges that might be solvable by a lone wolf, in the former case to reduce the data/training requirements and in the latter to stop ions wastefully hitting a grid.
But in 10 years the costs should be down about 99%, which turns the AI training costs from "major investment by mega corp or super-rich" into "lottery winner might buy one".
They genuinely believe they will build AGI and therefore becoming the world’s most valuable company is a natural consequence.
Whether this is possible/probable is a different story, but I think a capped profit structure makes logical sense for the company that is aiming to create AGI. Would you want this technology instead in the hands of a for profit company?
I don't understand why they put this thin veneer on top of what they are doing. Maybe Thiel was burnt with the bad press surrounding Palantir and this is preventive damage control.
If OpenAI's products become the next Googlie thing (and here I was worried about Cloudflare <smack head>) then these are the future influencers. This is society mainlined on TikTok levels of manipulation.
Surely you have adapted to ChatGPT's requirements for interacting, have you not? There is a name for this: social engineering.
[0] Well, non-programmers at least: webcomic creators[1][2][3], news anchors[4], opinion piece columnist[5], and stand-up comedians[6]. Programmers also know about GitHub Copilot.
[1] https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/mountweazel
[2] https://www.collectedcurios.com/sequentialart.php?s=1226
[3] https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/10bj8jm/cl...
[4] https://youtu.be/GYeJC31JcM0
[5] https://mobile.twitter.com/CraigGrannell/status/161460352687...
[6] Russell Howard, but I can't find the clip on youtube
As one example, Sequoia invested in Airbnb at $0.01 per share, and Airbnb's current stock price is $102, almost exactly 10000x return. This happens more often that you think if you're not in the early stage & top VC world.
what you are saying is not true.
Something doesnt have to be a charity to be donated money towards. The question was: Why aren't they donating the money? The answer is: Because the want to make money.
Just FYI: OpenAI tried going the non-profit route, it didnt work, because suprise, suprise, in the grand scheme of VC things nobody wants to donate 10 billion dollars to anything.
I have known of plenty of people (myself included) who would not invest in some companies because they think there are moral issues with that company. Same thing.
> Just FYI: OpenAI tried going the non-profit route, it didnt work, because suprise, suprise, in the grand scheme of VC things nobody wants to donate 10 billion dollars to anything.
Exactly, so they went something in-between, but in reality it is very much for-profit.
$0.01 per mean share would mean 6.5M USD valuation (current mkt cap is 65Bn). Accounting for dilution in investment rounds, let's say 4 x 20% dilution, that is around 52% penalty in valuation. Roughly, their entering price would be around 3-4M USD valuation. I am not saying in any way that this is a low return also, I may be wrong on my calculation, please, be free to correct me! ; )
Using share prices side steps dilution, which is a problem when one linearly scales valuation increases to wealth gains.
Aren't those equity returns? i.e. when you sell (your shares of) the company to the public... the reason people still value the company is discounted future returns.
So if you want to generate such returns with cash (i.e. profit) it can take quite a bit longer.