skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Interestingly (for some)

"Through compiler and OS support [HPE NonStop OS] runs in Big Endian from the user’s perspective [ on x86-64 Xeon]" [0]

Big Endian, how does it work?
The x86 is little endian, right?
• The compilers byte swap data items before placing them into memory for program variables
• Does not apply to non-program variables such as return addresses pushed onto the memory stack
• The OS along with the debuggers make the view complete
• But if you just scroll through memory you can see a mix of Big and Little endian datums
• Allows for binary data to be exchanged between Itanium and x86 systems without any special handling
• In particular, messages sent via Expand between a NonStop x86 based system and a NonStop Itanium system require no extra
handling.

[0] https://dan-lewis-fns9.squarespace.com/s/NonStop-X-Overview-...
"All my teams were raising red flags about needing more time but he didn't give a damn."
Then came back for more. Sad.
did your colleagues ship chatgpt
> It isn't worth the effort because if people can't see it for themselves already, no amount of explanation from me is going to change their mind.

That's convenient. I mean, if you were to produce such an essay I think it would actually be extremely high value and a lot of people would enjoy reading it. Hell, a decent HN post would be nice.

But if you're so unable to express the idea, I frankly question whether you really have such a strong grasp on it.
The future of AI and the trappings that go with it.

But in all seriousness, the transformer architecture was born at Google, but they were too arrogant and stupid to capitalize on it. Sutskever needed Altman to commercialize and make a product. He no longer needs Sam Altman. A bit OT but true.
I think he's telling the truth about his beliefs. But if he always believed that AI is dangerous they should have never done the Microsoft deal.
But then the Air Force releases video footage of UFO encounters after decades of gaslighting the public?

“The government isn’t listening” except Snowden dumps the documents that show 10+ systems designed for mass intelligence?
It doesn't have to be that expensive. They could start with a small scale demonstrator that could fly on Falcon 9 just to explore feasibility and make the mistakes at less cost. Or once Starship is operational they could fly several different small scale prototypes just to test them in one go, and they could even do this on an early flight that they wouldn't use to launch commercial payloads. Still expensive, because it might need two flights for them to get the confidence they need to go with one design. But not as expensive as "the expensive way".
Altman is a heck of a lot less famous than CHATGPT-- so if fame is the issue, OpenAI seems fine?
> it subsequently restructured into a for-profit company with the nonprofit owned under the same umbrella company.

Wikipedia says the for-profit part is owned by the non-profit, not under the same umbrella company.

Mozilla Foundation/Corporation does this too IIRC. It's what allows them to to pursue serious revenue streams with the for-profit part, while still steering their mission with the non-profit in charge, as long as they keep a separation in some kinds of revenue terms.

EDIT after 56 minutes: Hell, even IKEA does this type of ownership structure. So it's quite cool, but probably not all that "wacky" as far as enterprises that want to be socially responsible go.
I mean... he got fired so if that's what happened, they did notice.
> force people to behave in line with the best available evidence.

I think this… really depends on the behavior.

I think, pretty much universally we should never force someone to pretend their beliefs conform to such evidence.

But, in certain circumstances, I think it’s absolutely appropriate to force people to conform to our understanding of the world.

Consider exaggerating this principle to an extreme degree (to demonstrate that, at least there exists a line where we should force people to conform). Let’s suppose we say it’s illegal to stab a person, because according to our understanding of biology, stabbings make it much more likely that the victim is seriously injured or dies. Suppose there is a person that does not believe stabbing causes injuries. We *should not* force them to change their beliefs. We should not force them to hide their beliefs, or to lie about their beliefs. They should be allowed to openly expesss their views—contrary as they are to our current knowledge.

But we should force them not to stab people. We absolutely should force their actions to match our understanding of the world.

To take it to a more plausible scenario, imagine someone has an extremely communicable and terminal disease. All our scientific understanding says that, if they deliberately cough in someone’s face, the victim is likely to be harmed or killed. This infected person does not believe in this science. It’s okay that they don’t believe in the science. It’s fine for them to argue that the science is wrong. It should still be illegal for them to deliberately cough in someone’s face if they know they are currently infected.
Years from now, people will realize that today was the starting point of OpenAI's decline. It's unfortunate that such important technological advancements were influenced by “palace politics”. Regardless, Sam's significant contributions deserved a more dignified departure, and the OpenAI board chose the least dignified way. Perhaps one day Sam will leave OpenAI, but it absolutely should not have been today.
TikTok pressured to suppress pro-Palestine voices in crackdown on free speech
Ilya Sutskever really seems to think AGI's birth is impending and likely to be delivered at OpenAI.

From that perspective it makes sense to keep capital at arms length.

Is there anything to his certainty? It doesn't feel like it's anywhere close.
>>He can't do it without Ilya or Ilya-lite.

The wrongest thing I've read on HN for a long while.

The world has alot more smart people in it than you realise, and Sam's rockstar profile gives him direct access to them.
Also backed up the comments here: https://prakgupta.com/misc/sam_altman_firing.pdf
You are being downvoted because the post Musk replied to said nothing about the ADL. Geez.
What would make you think a marketing department would potentially be involved here? Besides the obvious Marketing = Bad connection prevalent here on HN?
Traffic accidents including kids (as well as traffic accidents in general) have been trending down for decades significantly[1]. This is also the case for virtually any safety related statistic.

It has nothing to do with reality, it's simply that helicopter parenting and neuroticism has been trending up for ages.

[1]https://seriousaccidents.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/chil...
https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenAI/comments/17xoact/comment/k9p...

> „im not at liberty to say, but im very close. i dont want to give to many details.“
It would be hilarious if we saw a wave of CEO firings along the lines of the follow-the-leader tech layoffs earlier this year.
Half-Life 25th Anniversary Documentary [video]
You've gotta be kidding me. No spelling mistakes means something was generated by ChatGPT now? Good grief.
Actually, I think this precisely gives credence to the theory that Sam was disingenuously proselytizing to gain power and influence, regulatory capture being one method of many.

As you say, Altman has been on a world tour, but he's effectively paying lip service to the need for safety when the primary outcome of his tour has been to cozy up to powerful actors, and push not just product, but further investment and future profit.

I don't think Sutskever was primarily motivated by AI safety in this decision, as he says this "was the board doing its duty to the mission of the nonprofit, which is to make sure that OpenAI builds AGI that benefits all of humanity." [1]

To me this indicates that Sutskever felt that Sam's strategy was opposed to original the mission of the nonprofit, and likely to benefit powerful actors rather than all of humanity.

1. https://twitter.com/GaryMarcus/status/1725707548106580255
apart from the things that my sibling comments are saying. OP just said

>so people put up with his foolishness.

about Ilya. OP just implied, having ideals == being foolish.
it is as close to calling a non-profit, wacky.
This post is raising red flags for me as soon as Helen and Tasha were put in quotes as opposed to Ilya and Adam.

Is it being non comp-sci that automatically invalidates proper usage of your actual name? Or is there another key by which their names are less worth?

They are also both fairly established in their respective fields - which - yes - isn’t hard comp-sci, but if you think tech companies should have purely comp sci board leads, I’d call that incredibly naive.

They were also presumably vetted by the other board members - unless you think they are serving a different purpose on the board (diversity targets?) - which if so - puts the comment from red flag into mysoginist territory.

Personally I don’t see anything in their CV’s that would disqualify them from executing their function on the board, and I wouldn’t call them incompetent in being able to assess whether a person lied or not (which even in your theory - Sam would’ve done). You don’t need to be an ML/AI expert for that.
> This is because software engineers never actually use devices that have parental controls enabled.

Yeah, it’s super-obvious. In many cases they’ve put work into implementing crap that’s useless without a lot more work to add more features… or they could have done something much simpler and it’d at least be a lot better than what they’ve actually done.
Because it’s a joke. (And upvoted you btw)
> Palmer, of course, went on to start a company (anduril), which has a much more powerful and direct ability to enact his political will.

If that were true, Palmer Lucky wouldn't spend all his time ranting on twitter about how he was so easily hoodwinked by the community of a particular linux distribution / functional programming language.
You totally can and should. Being honest about not getting to something is better than covering it up. So long as its not a regular occurrence then it should be okay. And its even easier if you set expectations up front. "Hey im going to spend some time socializing with xyz today. I might not get to much sprint work"
No way. Demon in your midsts. Some people actually have amazing options with no associations to molestation.

When stuff like this happens it’s an insane abandon ship moment. Of course, obviously it is, but people will act in ways that are strange if you don’t know what’s going on internally.

Things like smooth transitions don’t happen and people basically willing to crawl into a cannon and get hurled away if it removes that person NOW.
> and pissing off Microsoft by tanking their stock price

When did Microsoft’s stock price tank?

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/MSFT/
As technical leader let me say technical people frequently underestimate business leadership.
Looks like a capital issue.
Wasn't she dismissed as a uncredible witness / grifter or something?
Getting rid of ICE was the #1 factor when I bought an EV. No stinky gas fumes in my garage, no more trips to a gas station to fill up. Worth the premium IMO. ~300 mile range, charge time, and charger network hasn’t been a problem yet.
I refuse to accept that the lack of spelling mistakes and the careful use of language is evidence of AI.
I can be sloppy, but I've known Real Humans to take great care with their written language.
You are reading too much into this, and falling victim to sam altman’a marketing strategy, of fud fomo and hype - tricks adopted from the crypto underworld.

What happened instead is altman and his followers took over a genuinely open initiative of building ai.

In doing so he thought he could simply monetise models built upon content that they had no right to monetise, since their so called ai doesnt actually learn, it depends on data - the more the better.

Well it turns out that some sane people at openai decided to end the pyramid scheme of data - funding - data and return to core values.

Or at least that’s my hope, as that is the only path forward to building ai, a goal they havent reached yet.
What’s the legal risk? Their investors sue them for..? Altman sues for..?

How is the language “we are going our separate ways” compared with “Mr. Altman’s departure follows a deliberative review process by the board, which concluded that he was not consistently candid in his communications with the board, hindering its ability to exercise its responsibilities. The board no longer has confidence in his ability to continue leading OpenAI” going to have a material difference in the outcome of the action of him getting fired?

How do the complainants show a judge and jury that they were materially harmed by the choice of language above?
One imagines in this case the current board discussed this in a non-board context, scheduled a meeting without inviting the chair, made quorum, and voted, then wrote the PR and let Sam, Greg, and HR know, then released the PR.
Which is pretty interesting in and of itself, maybe they were trying to sidestep roko or something
I learned the name "ChildCrusher GTX" from BlueSky. You could also have a ChildCrusher 150 or a ChildCrusher 2500. All are equally detestable.
This is just poor API design. It's that simple. `login` is on the wrong object. I'm not going to write it all out but consider this snippet:

```
def login(self) -> AppClient
```
Thats an intersting chart, and i conced doesnt align with my anecdotal data. Can you like the source post or data for this data?

I dont think its the scary boogy man of people snaching kids, but really drivers just on their phones, but hard to tell.
By middle school most kids are effectively required to be on their computers and/or phones on a daily basis to even just do their homework. And their friends are going to be texting. These kids are going to be on screens, regardless of playtime outside. I already have a pretty good understanding of "the importance of moderating and monitoring electronics use", and would really like the tools that help me do just those things to work better.
From all accounts, Altman is a smart operator. So the whole story doesn’t make sense. Altman being the prime mover, doesn’t have sufficient traction with the board to protect his own position and allows a few non-techies to boot him out ?
You're right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Brockman
Read the last paragraph. It doesn't take an essay.
Hasn’t Sam been there since the company was founded?
Car-Replacement Bicycle (the bakfiets)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQhzEnWCgHA
Basically half the point of this is that Microsoft isn’t a stakeholder. The board clearly doesn’t care or is actively hostile to the idea of growing “the business”. If they didn’t know then that they weren’t a stakeholder, they know now.

MS owns a non controlling share of a business controlled by a nonprofit. MS should have prepared for the possibility that their interests aren’t adequately represented. I’m guessing Altman is very persuasive and they were in a rush to make a deal.
"save Microsoft", really? Are their multiple enterprise moats going to disappear because Altman got fired?

Microsoft lost more than $20b on Nokia, Skype, WinPhone and RT OS, and barely blinked.
We use language like “hallucinations, bullshit, etc.”, because it’s more accurate descriptors for what’s happening.

When I tell you the LLM hallucinated something, you know exactly what I mean. Same for “It’s rationalizing”, “It’s refusing to answer”, “It’s being illogical”.

Your desire to reduce it all down to stats is as a bad as someone arguing that we shouldn’t talk about balls and goals in basketball, because it’s all just atoms.
You’re taking Hinton at his word. Maybe he was forced out of Google for doing nothing with LLM tech for half a decade.
Hmmm, that's the same reputation er... western science has as well.
Already posted:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38314868
Traitorous eight
Ok, now I'm curious, do you live in a monastery or a very small community?
> Whether it's right or just in some sense is a different conversation.

The same conversation if it's "mature", surely? I'm failing to see how one thinks turning a blind eye to like, decades of sexual impropriety and major internal culture issues to the point the state takes action against your company is "mature". Like, under what definition?
I'm very curious what definition of safety they were using. Maybe that's where the disagreement lies.

AI safety of the form "it doesn't try to kill us" is a very difficult but very important problem to be solved.

AI safety that consists of "it doesn't share true but politically incorrect information (without a lot of coaxing)" is all I've seen as an end user, and I don't consider it important.
I think this is what the parent meant by regulatory capture.
Our stupid monkey brains are evolved to work in a primitive, human centric way, we always need a "figure", a "leader" to look up to, we can't comprehend that many people can be involved in something, that doesn't satisfy our primate brains need to follow or worship someone.
Doing so in the current world climate, with Russia actively neighboring countries and making threats against Europe, and China threatening their neighbors and actively preparing their military for a potential invasion of Taiwan, and with more shit kicking off in the Middle East, seems politically rather fraught.
When they are identified they will be let go.
???

Source?
you seem to have confused the two. Sam’s entire reason for being there was to decrease transparency, make open research proprietary, and monetize it.
I suggest progressively more challenging locks to hone her skills.
If helicopter parenting is trending up while traffic accidents including kids are trending down, isn’t that more likely to be evidence in favor of helicopter parenting?
I've never felt pressured to join a corporate board against my will.
You just made up your own fantasy then ended it with "let this be a lessen".
As if most humans would do any better on those exercises.

This thing is two years old. Be patient.
There's more graceful ways to do this though.
It’s still just extremely hard to see sacking your CEO over this.
In modern use it is apparently common to write e.g. 40ties or 90ties.

I'm not sure what the thinking is, or why 40s or 90s aren't "enough".
Sam literally has 0 equity in OpenAI. How did he “choose money”?
The Model 3 in China is only ~$30k.

Stuff is just cheaper in China.

I highly doubt BYD could sell a car in the US for $20k.
I would be thrilled if that were a viable solution.
Ridley Scott response to the film's historical accuracy – 'get a life'
i helped dehorse uncle jack
Text adventure ported to social media
We can't see inside, so we don't know. Their Chief Scientist and probably the best living + active ML scientist probably has better visibility into the answer to that question than we do, but just like any scientist could easily fall into the trap of believing too strongly in their own theories and work. That said... in a dispute between a silicon valley crypto/venture capitalist guy and the chief scientist about anything technical, I'm going to give a lot more weight to Ilya than Sam.
The only referrals that ever worked for me were those where the referee and I would have drinks or lunches once every couple of months and he likewise with the person to whom I was referred.
All values appreciated by the backers of this forum, to be fair.
This is what makes me irritated when folks (like, say, on this very site) are all, “LOL just do your job, parents.”

Yeah, I’m fucking trying, but all the tech features for this are defective and this is a whole pile of extra crap that prior generations of parents didn’t have to spend time and attention on. Maybe help? By not writing software with defective or absent parental controls? Please?

God help parents who didn’t grow up doing stuff like configuring OpenBSD routers for fun. They have no hope of figuring all this out.
It's possible this will have the opposite effect.

Sam was the VC guy pushing gatekeeping of models and building closed products and revenue streams. Ilya is the AI researcher who believes strongly in the nonprofit mission and open source.

Perhaps, if OpenAI can survive those, then they will actually be more open in the future.
https://nitter.net/karaswisher/status/1725702501435941294
This is a problem not just in software. Today, everyone wants a senior <insert job role> for the price of a junior <insert job role>. So many problems would be solved orders of magnitude more soon if people were properly compensated. Instead, most things in the United States are running on economic fumes.
>I mean, none of this would be possible without insane amounts of capital and world class talent, and they probably just made it a lot harder to acquire both.

By seemingly siding with staff over the CEO's desire go way too fast and break a lot of things? I'd think that world class talent hearing they might be able to go home at night because the CEO isn't intent on having Cybernet deployed tomorrow but next week instead is more appealing than not.
What alternative does MS have? OpenAI has the power in that deal.
If you mean it prevents you from raising capital by selling a percent of the company then yes, that’s pretty wacky. Profitable companies can afford to be idealistic. Others that are burning billions don’t have that luxury.
when supply is limited, there isn't really a difference between demand and cost. when supply went low, demand, and thus cost to the middlemen went way, way up. the middleman was just applying a markup and passing their cost on to consumers.
>But in one sentence, try asking ChatGPT to reverse a string of 20+ digits, like 473936482738338373926.

LLMs don't see numbers or letters but tokens. Letter, digit level manipulation is intuitively a hard task. Unsurprisingly, removing that handicap resulted in much better arithmetic abilities. https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.02989

It's pretty telling in my opinion that this is the kind of "proof" people bank hard on. For something that so obviously "does not understand", you'd think providing a task that it would fail that a chunk of humans also wouldn't would be easy.
See after hours. Looks like down ~1.5%
Writing as a boomer, since I've paid down my mortgage, I don't care.

To me my home was not an investment in this sense of shares or an LPT. I'm here to live in it. I intend to die owning it. I have not bought it with a view to its future asset value.

But anyone who is early stage high debt will be looking at this trend with fear and trepidation. Boomers selling up is great for people stuck in the rental trap and excluded from property ownership by price and I would welcome a downward valuation on property, for that reason.

But for the people on 5 and 6x their income debt to equity leveraged into $1m and $2m mortgage debt no matter what the interest terms, this is dire.
Obvious fake. No one in that position would busy themselves posting to reddit about it
Could definitely fly under the guise of “the market has changed. The people capable of steering the ship in a low interest/easy money regime are not the people for a reversion to the mean/more difficult situation.”
Presumably your miner is running 24/7 throughout the month. Not the same for ChatGPT which would answer maybe 10 sessions (with multiple pauses between queries) tops from a single person in a day.
OK, I mean, you used the word essay so I used the word essay. But thanks for editing in that paragraph.
Will wait to pass judgement until hearing from Sam.