Sam Altman: OpenAI CEO on GPT-4, ChatGPT, and the Future of AI | Lex Fridman Podcast #367

What people said

zzzceo · 2023-11 · Criticism

I was not at all surprised re: Altman's ouster, and OpenAI should be both firm and unapolegetic in keeping him out. What took them so long!? I remember when I dumped him myself, after watching Altman's snore-inducing interview on the ever-engaging Lex Fridman podcast: [VIDEO] Lex's questions were the only inciteful part; Altman's responses, if you could call them that, were uninteresting to the extreme. This is the billionaire CEO of the hottest tech company around? WTF? Now I can see why Hacker News never changed, still has 1999 interface, etc. If this is leadership, call me an Uber. Ditto Brockman's GPT-4 reveal, all giddy doodads: Oh, look-see, it can compose poems in the style of [sic] dude! nobody cares. Zzzz. Altman is just so damn boring, his energy level and engagement on par with a cup of decaffeinated tea. Listen to him on Fridman. Find a single incite from Altman in the entire 2+ hours that suggests engagement beyond the purely superficial. You can't. You feel actual pain as Fridman works from every side to pull something, anything out of Altman's blasé bleh blah.

Read the original HN comment ↗

mitthrowaway2 · 2023-05 · Criticism

Indeed. It's probably what I would do if I were him. Or direct OpenAI entirely into AI safety research and stop doing capabilities research. I watched his interview with Lex Fridman,[1] and I didn't think he seemed very sincere. On the other hand I think there are a lot of people who are very sincere, like Max Tegmark.[2] [1] [VIDEO] [2] [LINK]

Read the original HN comment ↗

qwertox · 2023-04 · Reference

From his interview with Lex Friedman: Quoting what he says [0][1]: > You know, a funny thing about the way we're training these models is I suspect too much of the like processing power for lack of a better word is going into using the models as a database instead of using the model as a reasoning engine. The thing that's really amazing about the system is that it, for some definition of reasoning, and we could of course quibble about it and there's plenty for which definitions this wouldn't be accurate. But for some definition it can do some kind of reasoning. And, you know, maybe like the scholars and the experts and like the armchair quarterbacks on Twitter would say, no, it can't. You're misusing the word, you know, whatever, whatever. But I think most people who have used the system would say, okay, it's doing something in this direction. And I think that's remarkable. And the thing that's most exciting and somehow out of ingesting human knowledge, it's coming up with this reasoning capability. However, we're gonna talk about that. Now, in some senses, I think that will be additive to human wisdom. [0] [LINK] [1] [VIDEO]

Read the original HN comment ↗