skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Because it will cost billions to build and run and the builders have no clue how to get the money, and once they have something built, how to keep the money flowing in.
With a fairly neutral opinion of sama, I think this whole move has done more to hurt OpenAI than help. There are politics in companies all the time but it takes a certain finesse because you don’t want to sink the ship. This at best creates a stronger divide between those for and against.
Like how Steve Jobs invented computers and the iPhone, this entire rotten American tech culture of effective altruists and randian freaks, it's one big cult. That's why it looks so freakish from the outside, it's end stage hyper capitalism.
Fair enough, shame "Large Tokenized Models" etc never entered the nomenclature.
A typical YC execution of a product/pump/hype/VC/scale cycle and ignoring every ethical rule is a good way to start. And is a reasonable way to lift up a nonprofit on a path to AGI, but hardly a good way to govern a company that builds AGI/ASI technology in the long term.
All this SV celebrity gossip is so annoying.
days? before he walks out the door. he must already have permanently open doors for him if he wants.

can he work on what he wants in those places? that is another story of course. but he knows the ins and outs of the lightning in a jar they captured and arguably that is the most promising asset on planet earth right now, so he'll be fine.
"Leaked picture of @sama during his rehiring google meet with the OpenAI board."

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F_QXAKEW0AAQpPC?format=png&name=...
Privacy is less important than AGI and any privacy you think you have is an illusion, only maintained while it's profitable for you to think you have privacy. Accept the reality and grow the hell up
You can dislike Sam or disagree with his decisions, but he's not a sociopath.
A couple of comments:

The literature I'm familiar with doesn't suggest specific cognitive decline attributable to continuous flow vs pulsatile flow LVAD. Most likely, the consequences have to do with waves hands everything else going on and wash out if you have proper controls. For the briefer bypass for CABG, the literature does not clearly demonstrate a difference between on-pump and off-pump, but it seems to be an area of ongoing interest for the surgeons.

The failure of the aortic valve to open leads to thrombosis rather than calcification.

If the authors of the original post that we're discussing had run a comparison to a continuous-flow device and shown some sort of difference, then I'd be sold that their method is important. But since they are just comparing to the literature, the significance of the achievement remains unclear to me.
i think this is unlikely given Musk's warnings about the dangers posed by AI
> the optimal level of production is the level that satisfies the desired level of consumption

You're assuming that "the desired level of consumption" is a constant. It's not. It's a function that depends on circumstances. People discover new things, and some of those discoveries lead to desires that were previously unknown or even unimaginable. It would never even occur to our neolithic ancestors to want an iPhone or a Tesla. But some of our ancestors wanted to discover new things, and some of those discoveries naturally lead to discovering new things to want.

And that's not even mentioning the fact that one of the things that people naturally want is to have children, which leads to more people wanting things. So even if the things they want are the same old things, demand will naturally grow as the population increases.
If the board was in the right and there is something very serious the public doesn’t know about, why hasn’t a single member leaked the story to the press? This also doesn’t make sense with reports that Sam’s return is being negotiated, although I think this comment was made before these (unconfirmed) stories came out.

The board are looking very bad here imo. Either it was serious misconduct from Sam and that should be at least leaked, or they staged a coup.
He learnt about recursion in a fp workshop(?), and as a first exercise, tried applying it to sort.

You pick a number in the list, then put lesser numbers into a left-list, and greater into a right-list. Recurse.

It's very slow as intuitive, simple and elegant fp, because it's creating new lists like crazy; but a mutable, in-place version (e.g. in C) is super fast. Maybe the origin of the folklore "learn fp to be a better coder, not to code fp"? I don't think he expected it to be so good; he was just doing him. A very smart man.
The internet is not called "AGI". It's the notion of AGI that brought "safety" to the forefront. AI folks became victims of their hype. Renaming the term into something less provocative/controversial (ML?) can reduce expectations to the level of the internet - problem solved?
Not for the better why?

Obviously Sam wasn’t the best fit for OpenAI and investors aren’t even saying what the problem is. Clearly the board feels he was the wrong person for the job.

I think it’s ridiculous that everything thinks that Sam being outed means OpenAI is in trouble. Let this play out and see how it evolves
> a blight on corporate governance
> They have blind-sided partners (e.g. Satya is furious)
> the threat that a for-profit version of OpenAI dominates the market

It's seeming like corporate governance and market domination are exactly the kind of thing the board are trying to separate from with this move. They can't achieve this by going to investors first and talking about it - you think Microsoft isn't going to do everything in their power to prevent it from happening if they knew about it? I think their mission is laudable, and they simply did it the way it had to be done.

You can't slowly untangle yourself from one of the biggest companies in the world while it is coiling around your extremely valuable technology.
A person who doesn't care about privacy isn't likely to care about security. And it seems security was the main factor in what we're going through right now.
“Icarus ignored Daedalus’s instructions not to fly too close to the sun, causing the beeswax in his wings to melt. Icarus fell from the sky, plunged into the sea, and drowned.” Strikingly fit metaphor for Altman.
> But how much chance is there that the user actually typed Revlon with a capital R? I think practically nil.

Uh.......

You might want to spend a second researching what "Revlon" is before speculating like this. I'm 100% positive that they actually typed Revlon with a capital R, because I know what Revlon is, and it's completely topical and contextual. It's very well known in certain circles, much like Chevron, Howey, and Brandenburg.
Max Levchin was an organizer of two coups while at PayPal. Both times, he believed it was necessary for the success of the company. Whether that was correct or not, they eventually succeeded and I don’t think the coups really hurt his later career.
The Costly Coordination Mechanism of Common Knowledge (2018)
I think the closed source for safety thing started as a ruse as the closed source has been instrumental to keeping control and justifying a non profit that is otherwise not working in the public interest. Splitting off this ruse nonprofit would almost certainly end up unleashing the tech normally like every other tech google, etc, have easily copied.
what do you mean? Are you saying that is part of the article of incorporation for for-profit Open AI?
I think you might build a rocket that was less prone to blowing up, but it might not be as efficient.

You might also not be able to build it with a room full of idealistic youths running on inspiration.
Bad take. Not "everyone" feels that what they did was wrong. We don't have insight into what's going on internally. Optics matter; the division over their decision means that its definitionally non-obvious what the correct path forward is; or, that there isn't one correct path, but multiple reasonable paths. To admit a mistake of this magnitude is to admit that you're either so unprincipled that your mind can be changed at a whim; or that you didn't think through the decision enough preemptively. These are absolutely signs of weakness in leadership.
Hahaha really? What's going on here? It looks likes a soap opera ... Maybe someone is worried about their stocks on monday?
Sam attracted money and attention, which attracted talent. If Sam departs for another venture, some - or a lot - of the talent and attention and money will leave too. This isn’t a car factory where you can replace one worker with another. If some of the top folks leave with Sam (as they already are) it’s reasonable to assume that the product will suffer.
Based on my recollection of a conversation with the authors after their STOC talk: the RAM scheme is not efficient enough to be competitive with circuit-based FHE schemes; for problems with low RAM usage, existing circuit-based methods are more efficient, and problems with higher RAM usage are infeasible to run on any FHE method right now.

They were 50/50 on whether or not this technique could be made feasible in the same way that, say, the CKKS scheme is.
I'm with you on the overall read of her resume, but "believes in <principal> that <bad person> believes in" isn't fair criticism.
“The term is often used in astronomy, but can also refer to any situation in which an object in the foreground blocks from view (occults) an object in the background.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occultation
Why isn’t that enough? Bad fit so he’s gone.

They do it to employees yet CEOs are somehow exempt? Ever heard of fire fast?
“I think they could have won in the court of public opinion if their press release said they loved Sam but felt like his skills and ambitions diverged from their mission. But instead, they tried to skewer him, and it backfired completely.”

^^

I don’t think the wording of the “press release” is an issue.

This is a split over an actual matter to differ about: a genuine fork in the road in terms of pace and development of AI products, and, a CEO which apparently did not keep the board informed as it pursued a direction they feel is contrary to the mission statement of this non-profit.

The board could have done this in the most gracious of manners, but it would not have made a bit of difference.

On one side we have the hyper rich investor “grow grow grow” crowd and their attendant cult of personality wunderkind and his or her project, and on the other side bunch of geeky idealists who want to be thoughtful in the development of what is undeniably a world changing technology for mankind.
> Well that’s a bit mischaracterization of the Manhattan Project, and the views of everyone involved now isn’t it?

Is it? The push for the bomb was an international arms race — America against Russia. The race for AGI is an international arms race — America against China. The Manhattan Project members knew that what they were doing would have terrible consequences for the world but decided to forge ahead. It’s hard to say concretely what the leaders in AGI believe right now.

Ideology (and fear, and greed) can cause well meaning people to do terrible things. It does all the time. If Anthropic, OpenAI, etc. believed they had access to world ending technology they wouldn’t stop, they’d keep going so that the U.S. could have a monopoly on it. And then we’d need a chastened figure ala Oppenheimer to right the balance again.
Do you think a person who you know doesn't care about privacy is going to care about security (AGI)?
Let's wait for more details on what actually went down.

It's entirely possible Sam was exploring sales or new commercial ventures behind the board's back, or pressuring the business to side-step the oversight and safety mechanisms expected by the overarching non-profit mission. The timing with the dev event is suspect. It sounds like something came out that the board and research organizations were unaware of.

There's no indication that OpenAI wants to terminate existing or future commercial ventures.
I have noticed you decided to use several German words in your reply, trying not to be petty but at least you should attempt to write them correctly. It’s either Wunderkind (German word for child prodigy) or english translation: wonder kid.
If you want more open research and development, you should be happy for a closed OpenAI. It's why we have Mistral. Let the org redefine itself and push new boundaries. If we didn't have commercial unix there would be no linux. Allow the path to be blazed by VC, it's not about open technology being first, it's about it even existing at all.
Both those resumes read as not being unqualified for the job, but their primary qualification is being women.
Not just that, the way they’ve handled this also means that no other large investor will fund them.
The Fear and Tension That Led to Sam Altman's Ouster at OpenAI
Maybe not as extreme as never being able to find work again, but I doubt he’ll ever find himself in an important role where he’s able to lead and make consequential decisions. He basically clipped his own wings to put it metaphorically, if this is indeed a failed coup that was lead by him.
https://www.axios.com/2023/11/18/openai-memo-altman-firing-m...
Assuming knowledge and understanding of an algorithm but no prior practice with implementing it, one’s way of implementing it does tell about their proficiency in programming.

GPs bubble sort was obviously just an example, effectiveness of the algorithm or wether there’s ever need for implementing it by hand is irrelevant.
This is such a weird take.

You do understand the whole point of silicon valley is the chaotic lack of maturity?

You cannot be staid and conservative and mature (and non-opportunistic)…and also be successful at creating new and interesting stuff.

If you find instability “horrifying,” might I suggest a job in banking or the federal government instead?
Who owns the shares?
It misses two points.

One is that software development is collective. On any non-trivial project, it's impossible for one person to understand the entire problem domain or the entire code base.

What's being called a theory here is also collective. It's the current combined understanding of a group of people.

The other point is that code is persistent. If it's finished and the developer who created it is fired (for example, for lying to the board) it will carry on working, because the understanding it contains has been automated.

The code only needs to be understood when it needs to be changed or reinvented. And changes can often be handled with partial understanding.

The more partial the understanding the more it's likely to lead to bugs. But sometimes it can also fix bugs which the original developer included - refining the automated understanding instead of making it worse.

So... I'm not at all convinced by the OP.
> I would like to see a standardized streaming protocol be developed.

Like... HLS?

> It would eliminate content providers having to roll their own streaming back ends and front end apps for so many platforms.

Oh you mean metadata. Forget it. We built a live streaming service specializing in classical works (opera, ballet...), and even within that tiny particular niche, nobody can agree what "standardized" metadata should look like.
The sudden and mysterious ousting of a popular CEO at 4pm on a Friday (!) from what is the most talked about company currently is a very interesting story. Can’t understand this position.
That's the trick. You should not chase every issue down. You should prioritize, but give one issue you should be able to chase it down and get to the bottom of it. So it's not about actually taking om the task of solving every issue, it's about the capability of solving any issue you deem worth solving.
It is really hard to predict anything in this business.
No more than any other weapon. When we talk about "safety in gun design", that's about making sure the gun doesn't accidentally kill someone. "AI safety" seems to be a similar idea -- making sure it doesn't decide on its own to go on a murder spree.
All robots are servo based.

And there is every reason to believe this is an ML classification issue since similar robots are in widespread use.
I'm not sure exactly what pcie corals you're referring to. If you mean the m.2 ones, it'd have to be less than the $25 or so MSRP, but if you have full-size cards I'd be very curious to see what they even look like first.
(I'm going to make some assumptions, just consider the broad point, if you please)

The girl guides are a non-profit; they teach kids about outdoor stuff, community, whatever, they do good works, visit old folks, etc.

If for some legal reasons they had a subsidiary that sold cookies (and made a profit), with all the profits returned to the non-profit parent, I think that'd be ....fine? Right?
Seems like a self-limiting attitude. It's a good article, and there are several easy ways to get around the UI issue.
> Meanwhile, id under Carmack kept cranking out hit after hit for years, essentially shrugging off Romero's firing like nothing happened.

I don't think that is accurate...

The output of id Software after Romero left (post Quake 1) was a clear step down. The technology was fantastic but the games were boring and uninspired, at best "good" but never "great". It took a full 20 years for them to make something interesting again (Doom in 2016).

After Romero left, id Software's biggest success was really as a technology licensing house, but not as a games developer. Powering games like Half Life, Medal of Honor, Call of Duty, ...

Meanwhile Romero's new company (Ion Storm) eventually failed, but at least the creative freedom there led to some interesting games, like Deus Ex and Anachronox. And even Daikatana is a more interesting game than something like Quake 2 or Quake III.
Can we not with the word "woke" please? Culture wars are really not relevant here.
What if MS and Altman planned a coup to get rid of the non profit part?

And MS isn't an investor in the company of the board.
There is a concept of a boardroom coup, which is what this was. The lack of decorum, the unceremonious and abrupt exit at the highest levels including removal of the chairman of the board, and the damning statement implying misconduct are very serious and substantial moves for any board to make, nevertheless one of the size of an org like OpenAI. They did not consult with investors, did not attempt to negotiate with the CEO/ask for a resignation, or anything of the sorts to resemble reasonable process. Usually you retain some form of legal counsel before making such a substantial move, but given the traditionally lax oversight non-profits, it doesn't seem like this is the case.

It's only at the abrupt all-hands meeting they called on a Friday night that it became clear that Ilya Sutskever was at the center of it. He had his disagreements, and pushed the board into making such a abrupt move, and then goes on to say something like "oh I agree it wasn't the ideal way to do it". It's very clear this was a power struggle, not maleficence (per words of OpenAI CTO), from Sam Altman. At least so far, it boils down to ... Ilya didn't like feeling sidelined, so he took things over. And now it's clear the board that sided with (or rubber stamped?) Ilya just wasn't prepared for the consequences.
> roof mounted solar can’t be street visible

"Look they have solar panels on their roof. There goes the neighbourhood."
1632 by Eric Flint, it turned into a series, it's alternative history, with a lot of infrastructure education baked in.
I tried to pre-empt this but apparently I didn't do a good enough job: my questions are with respect to the pig model system developed in the actual paper being discussed, not humans.
Especially since it's seems it's either Sam or Ilya. Now Sam might surely be preferred as CEO, but after the Anthropic Split, I think Ilya is even more crucial to the continuity of OpenAI. Many of the researches joined OpenAI for the "Open" part. Sure money attracts people but we saw that ideal attracted the best set of people and not money, or it would have been Microsft/Google/Apple who come up with GPT instead OpenAI.
Yes i know that technically this is Google's research they are using but the execution. efficinces and tuning is what matters more in this case.
The obvious difference is that an LLM is not a nuclear weapon. An LLM connected to tools can be dangerous, but by itself it's just a text generator. The responsibility then lies with those who connect it to dangerous tools.

I mean, you wouldn't blame a chip manufacturer when someone stick their stuff in a guided missile warhead.
He better call it "NextAI".
I'd love to have so much job security that two thirds of my employer's board couldn't fire me. :)
24 hours ago OpenAI fired their CEO in the most childish possible way. Now they are trying to get him back.

This is embarassing for OpenAI no matter how you slice it.
I really miss software like this... simple, fast, small, just works, they're rare nowadays
Plus now everyone is very aware of the allegations against him by his sister.
I was thinking more Amazon than Apple. Hiring an outsider to a team just to have someone to fire is supposedly common there.
I think most people don’t think it was obvious Sam wasn’t the best fit for OpenAI.
The way I think about it is that the struggle is essential if you want to push yourself to learn new things. Learning is a messy process and it's rarely a linjar affair.
Altman isn't the only one who knows how to raise money.
I guess you missed the part about Amal Clooney‘s husband at the Golden Globes. It’s 2023, why are we still referring people like that?
> charitable mission of the nonprofit of which they are the board

This exactly. Folks have completely forgotten that Altman and Co have largely bastardized the vision of OpenAI for sport and profit. It's very possible that this is part of a larger attempt to return to the stated mission of the organization. An outcome that is undoubtedly better for humanity.
> My gut feeling tells me that the chances of having an upstream library that contains the parser/parse analysis/planner are slim.

Yea. The parser alone would be doable and not even that hard. But once you get to parse analysis and planning, you need to access the catalogs (for parse analysis to look up object names and do permission checks, for planning to access operator definitions, statistics etc). Which in turn needs a lot of the catalog / relation cache infrastructure. By that point you've pulled in a lot of postgres.

Of course you could try to introduce a "data provider" layer between parse analysis and catalogs, but that'd be a lot of work. And it'd be quite hard to get right in places - e.g. doing name lookups without acquiring heavyweight locks on objects, before having done permission checks, in a concurrency safe way, relies on a bunch of subsystems working together.
Maybe. Or maybe they can profit differently going forward. Sam is not the reason OpenAI is gangbusters, its tech is. What I’m not hearing in any of this reporting is how Sam Altman is somehow the secret sauce.

And it’s because he isn’t. This is “rules for thee but not for me”. He as a bad fit, 2/3 the board outed him, and investors are mad because they didn’t feel included.

You know, like how they include employees in layoff decisions and not blind side them.

Sam Altman has spoken about “firing fast” when someone is a bad fit. he got fired fast, because he was a bad fit. That’s the seminal conclusion
Yeah, I had to chuckle at how cheerfully half-assed some of the bits are. No judgment, the good parts are really good and some of those scenes really are completely impossible to even approximate on the Apple II, so why not have a bit of fun with it? The equivalent of showing up to a car race wearing a cardboard box with FERRARI sharpied on it, since you know you can't win anyway.
Interesting previous discussion that touches upon LED and light quality:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35371750
This is the level of national security or foreign policy disaster. If you think anyone that was involved will ever work in tech again pass me whatever you're smoking