Plus: Apple is close to using ChatGPT; Microsoft builds its own LLM; China is sending a humanoid robot to space; lab-grown meat is on shelves but there is a catch; hybrid mouse/rat brains; and more!
I am wondering how often this happens in many organizations (even whether A(G)I focussed ir not), today, when different strategic decisions, and ensuing actions - are prioritized over time.
To prioritize products/services/saas/models to capture market share for “bandwith” (the shortages in chips or datacentres and technical expertise) is likely to be the goal of many A(G)I focused businesses today.
To quote, “struggling for compute…” …“getting ready for next generation of models on security, monitoring, preparedness, safety, adversarial robustness, super(alignment), confidentiality, societal impact and related topics.” assumes models preceed preparedness for safety, super(alignment) etc etc.
“Bandwith balance” is tough to fingerpoint, when the (multi-)modality space is evolving so fast.
Heavy is the crown any CEO of an (A(G)I) profit-centric business wears.
However, should such a “security, monitoring, preparedness, safety, adversarial robustness, super(alignment), confidentiality, societal impact and related topics” A(G)I centric business evolve, then this focus alone would act as a counter-balance on one “bandwith” and perhaps “profit or bottom line” focussed. Such an entity would separately need to be a non-profit, and funded in such a way to understand the bandwith requirements to act as a necessary counter-balance. That would have to be its focus. Both cannot exist together in one space - or at least it will be challenging to do so.
Ilya Sutskever's departure has caused a significant decline in OpenAI's safety research.
It might have been in decline for some time now. His departure was just the final step that gathered a lot of attention.
You are right.
I am wondering how often this happens in many organizations (even whether A(G)I focussed ir not), today, when different strategic decisions, and ensuing actions - are prioritized over time.
To prioritize products/services/saas/models to capture market share for “bandwith” (the shortages in chips or datacentres and technical expertise) is likely to be the goal of many A(G)I focused businesses today.
To quote, “struggling for compute…” …“getting ready for next generation of models on security, monitoring, preparedness, safety, adversarial robustness, super(alignment), confidentiality, societal impact and related topics.” assumes models preceed preparedness for safety, super(alignment) etc etc.
“Bandwith balance” is tough to fingerpoint, when the (multi-)modality space is evolving so fast.
Heavy is the crown any CEO of an (A(G)I) profit-centric business wears.
However, should such a “security, monitoring, preparedness, safety, adversarial robustness, super(alignment), confidentiality, societal impact and related topics” A(G)I centric business evolve, then this focus alone would act as a counter-balance on one “bandwith” and perhaps “profit or bottom line” focussed. Such an entity would separately need to be a non-profit, and funded in such a way to understand the bandwith requirements to act as a necessary counter-balance. That would have to be its focus. Both cannot exist together in one space - or at least it will be challenging to do so.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2024/5/17/24158403/openai-resignations-ai-safety-ilya-sutskever-jan-leike-artificial-intelligence
Thanks for sharing that article. It is very interesting.
Pleasure Conrad