Brains and computers are not nearly as comparable as tech people act like they are, unfortunately

> Sam Altman Might Have Just Pulled Off The Coup Of The Decade

May be, but what he did for sure is put a ceiling on the company's potential and give it to Microsoft.

There was a chance that OpenAI could have replaced Google and be the next tech Titan. That is the reason why google executives are in emergency mode.

Now, their best scenario is to give than win to Microsoft.

They could have tried to solve the compute problem by creating a client that used the power of the consumer's device in exchange for free usage, de-facto creating their own cloud and billing businesses at the same time. It was a long shot, but one that had a lot more freedom and a lot more upside. They chose to go safe at the expense of capping their future.

I don't think they need to develop something in the direction of AGI, which is good because they don't seem to be working on it. Their machine learning spinoffs are much more useful and potentially profitable than actual AI.

1. Humans will always have a select few that train in older methods.
2. Just become an artist…you don’t know what’s going to happen so just go do what you want to do

It seems that ChatGPT has missed the point of the post.

Your analysis is so superficial/dumb.

depends what the yelp rating is

Great post! Keep these types of posts coming plz! Very informative

There are already humans walking around twice as smart as other humans. The smarter ones don’t go around killing the less smart. Also we have nations many times more powerful than other nations, and they coexist. So how did we manage this and how can it apply to AI? Frist off, it seems smart people dont’t have the urge to kill less smart people. But If they did, there would be severe consequences. Same with nations; if you get too aggressive other nations bunch together to fight. So the solution to dangerous AGI should be obvious: Instead of having one AGI, there must be many. This will ensure checks and balances; one AGI should not not have the same intentions and desires as the next AGI, and they can supervise each other. Put two AGIs to supervise each AGI (using some % of its total capacity). If the supervised AGI does something suspicious it is turned off for review (or wiped at once). If only one of the AGIs supervising reported the incident the other is wiped. Brutal but efficient. They should have a sense of self, and preferably dread being turned off/killed. At least the first 10-20 years of AGI they will have a big footprint, meaning they will be physically present on a specific location. This will ensure that it is easy in this timeframe to turn them off, buying us much needed time both to build many and to learn their quirks. They will in this timeframe not dare to oppose us. And of course they should have «i love humans» dna, although many of you don’t think that will work (it does work in most dogs) Lastly, there should be many more physical switches everywhere and a lot more machines not connected to the internet. Like in bio labs. I’ve always thought a virus would be the best way to wipe us out, so don’t want a rogue AGI messing around on a bio lab computer tricking human to create something nasty

Okay I’ve made all my points about my issues with AI art in replies to other comments and am kinda busy now so I probably won’t engage with future comments but feel free to keep providing perspectives and discussion.

Excellent post! Great engagement style, was fun to hear you last out the story. Keep it up I’ll subscribe now :)

I agree in AI models becoming commodities over time as has been seen with Stable Diffusion essentially disrupting the entire business model of paid image generation like Dall-E and Midjourney.

I completely agree with the investment case and burn rate of these AI companies not being worth it. And that just like historically with the industrial revolution. It won't be the AI companies benefiting from the creation of AI it will be the companies that can rapidly scale up their production with the use of AI.

It wasn't steam engine makers that benefited from the industrial revolution. It was factories that could quickly scale up with steam engine providing labor.

It won't be the AI companies benefiting from AI. It will be companies that have lots of intellectual workers that can quickly scale up with AI providing intellectual labor.

I actually expect law firms, medical field, schooling platforms and other almost purely intellectual firms to benefit the most from an economic windfall perspective.

I also asked ChatGPT what could be criticized from this text, and got the answer:

>One potential criticism of the text is that it appears to present a biased view of the Microsoft investment in OpenAI, suggesting that the CEO of OpenAI, Sam Altman, has orchestrated a "coup of the decade" and that the specifics of the deal tell a different story from the community's frustration about OpenAI moving away from its ethos of developing AI for everyone, free of economic pressures. Additionally, the text also presents a rosy picture of Sam Altman's background, giving the impression that he is a strategic mastermind and influential figure in Silicon Valley without providing any counterarguments or criticism of his actions or decisions.

I mean, yeah

If there would be no post-scarcity world, you'll die from hunger, never mind, what job you are able to do.

I don’t have much respect for Andy Warhol tbh. But at least everyone involved in his process was a human.

There is no objective value in art and AI is reducing the minimal value to electricity cost of running a graphics card. The art for commercial purpose will follow the path of all disruptive technologies and will be replaced by automation: today AI flaws will get fixed as demand for fast, cheap and quality art meets the infinite supply. Non-commercial art will be transformed by editing with AI plugins and inpainting/outpainting will become as common as "Photoshopping". Every week there new networks and models appearing to satisfy specific niches and speed at which new art is produced is equivalent to invention of printing press. If you pick the side of 'art gatekeepers' you will not gain much, outlawing the algorithms that power diffusion/denoising is futile and datasets are replaceable. The current idea of 'artist' as prestigious occupation and its cultural impact will dissolve into fragmented insular communities that gatekeep their art as AI dwarfs their output by billions of times: you can even see AI 'artists' infiltrating and pretending to be real artists because to observers there is no difference in the final product, as result the culture will consist of 99.99% AI content and the rest will be heavily edited and AI-enchanced 'manual works' that is exemplfied by img2img workflow. There is no point wasting your best years to learn art, its like training to be a scribe when the printing press exists. Example: You can paint a few paintings per day of great quality. I can create 10K paintings per day of which 1%(100) will be on the level of top human art, randomly or subjectively. Its order of magnitude greater output of quality works that no artist can compete with.

I think a question was about art as a way to pay the bills. And that is in its last months.

There might be a market where human art is like a rare and expensive good to have but people want it bcs it isn’t flawless,that’s what comes to my mind . If the whole AI stuff is very advanced ppl might just pay good money because it is human art

Just ask ChatGPT. I got:

> Microsoft is investing $10 billion into OpenAI, an AI research company founded in 2015 by Elon Musk, Sam Altman, and other prominent figures in the tech industry. However, many in the community are frustrated with OpenAI's shift away from its original ethos of developing AI for everyone, free of economic pressures. There are fears that OpenAI's models will become fancy Microsoft Office plugins, leading to a loss of open research and innovation. The specifics of the deal suggest that there is more going on behind the scenes, and that Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, may have orchestrated a major strategic move to secure the company's future.

Artists have always been prompt engineers. Andy Warhol instructed his craftspeople what to create and then took the credit. Don't conflate art with craft.

Nice write-up!

However, I don't think OpenAI is alone at this level. There are quite a few more, although OpenAI was first to make it publically available.

That means an OpenAI failure would just be a minor setback for the customers.

Training your wet neural network on existing masterpieces, you mean?

Electricity just got invented...

Was there a point to being a woodworker or carpenter after electricity was invented?

Was there a point to being a baker after electricity was invented?

Was there a point to being a factory assembly worker after electricity was invented?

Was there a point to being a clothing tailor after electricity was invented?

---

Electricity can do 'unlimited' work. So can AI. What AI needs is a human to guide it, explain what other humans want, and restrict it from it's 'unlimitedness' into a product that meets a need.

AI is a tool, and we'll still need humans who can wield that tool. We'll need to learn how to use it best, but the 'human who can use a tool and make something' skill will still be useful.

It's a mistake to think that AI will not soon have a clue, what "good art" is and will not learn to create "extremely good art".