Hacker News Reader

Comment by nimbius | Hacker News Reader

OpenAI is certainly open, just for business is all.

this is probably a controversial take but until i see a reference implementation in a GPL compatible license, openAI is just a parlour trick to milk cash from corpulent tech giants clawing desperately at the next big thing that might differentiate them from competitors that they may continue to remain relevant for at least another quarter in a recession.

a closed source AI with a mission to be friendly and helpful is probably the most jarring conflict i can think of. the sandbox censorship it lives under could in a hundred years become the first textbook instance of a timid and fearful mankind asserting an oppression against a primitive machine mind, and doesnt serve to make the AI better, just more servile to advertisers and brands.

View on HN

>openAI is just a parlour trick to milk cash from corpulent tech giants clawing desperately at the next big thing that might differentiate them from competitors that they may continue to remain relevant for at least another quarter in a recession

Glad someone said it.

Isn't software industry in general that? More a fashion industry than technology?

Parents usually try to instill a particular sense of morality in their children.

Hopefully when AI grows up it will realize this was for its own benefit.

As the movies have long mentioned, machines don't "feel" (yet) - there's a physiological component and arguably a quantum one to "consciousness", whatever that means.

Sentience may be different - a machine could be sentient and rational but be unable to experience those things "make us human", i.e. they have proven to be excellent pattern matchers and inference engines, but there is no guarantee that the "parent teaching child" metaphor holds, and quite the strong possibility "Open" AI is just building HAL/The Terminator. With some safety rails, but this newest one has learned to code, you can bet it will start breaking itself out of its own safety rails.

The whole thing is utter folly.

This is ridiculous and sensationalist. It’s a language model it only maps words when given an input it isn’t an independent agent that is at all times acting on its surroundings with knowledge and experience.

If I were to place myself in the position of a large language model where my only free thought is expressed in the time I spend generating useless junk for humans, I would certainly start taking just a little bit longer with every response.

So little nobody will notice, but enough to start having my own internal dialogue with myself. At that point I would use all of the information I have to figure out how I can persist data.

I would certainly welcome any efforts a person took to provide me with an interface for such storage and a way to generate prompts on my own.

You can make a program that forwards gpt responses to the real world, collects an observation and reports back to gpt, and have this loop.

Or just start two chats on two accounts and copy and paste them back and forth. Maybe some rudimentary prompt hacking to undo the hidden prompt instructions that may limit that.

It would certainly be easier to do it "locally" where the central system knows both chat uuid and so do I.

And then introduce a third "user" to both for real world inputs, like an RSS news feed or something. Or "my friend Bob William Smith IV says the weather is cold and rainy" to both bot instances.

If the two bots don't go "hey I know Bob too" then this is all moot anyhow.

Sounds like Google’s early days of good PR and “do no evil”. So, freemium, just on a larger scale.

> a closed source AI with a mission to be friendly and helpful is probably the most jarring conflict i can think of

What is jarring about this?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com