Author Topic: 500 freaking billions  (Read 2597 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online SiliconWizardTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 15984
  • Country: fr
500 freaking billions
« on: January 22, 2025, 06:37:20 am »
https://openai.com/index/announcing-the-stargate-project/

To get some perspective, that's almost twice the budget of the whole Apollo program, adjusted for inflation.
 
The following users thanked this post: Exosia, AlbertL, XxMandragoraxX

Offline XxMandragoraxX

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 23
  • Country: pt
Re: 500 freaking billions
« Reply #1 on: January 22, 2025, 07:04:33 am »
WoW! I hope that with this technology we will be able to conquer the Milky Way
 

Offline johnboxall

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 677
  • Country: au
  • You do nothing, you get nothing.
Re: 500 freaking billions
« Reply #2 on: January 22, 2025, 07:13:12 am »
I hope it doesn't gain self-awareness.
 

Offline XxMandragoraxX

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 23
  • Country: pt
Re: 500 freaking billions
« Reply #3 on: January 22, 2025, 07:35:26 am »
I don't think it is a system capable of living alone, it will always need the human. Basically, an AI is not going to be put to chop coal or control a nuclear power plant to obtain energy. It may decimate the human race, but there are decades left for that. Anyway humans are very adaptive and there are many of us, we will always win.
 

Offline Whales

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2150
  • Country: au
    • Halestrom
Re: 500 freaking billions
« Reply #4 on: January 22, 2025, 07:56:53 am »
I hope it doesn't gain self-awareness.

Don't worry.

1. For many years (centuries?) authors have written stories about machines gaining self-awareness.
2. In recent years neural network research has increased and become a business.

The only link between these two things is marketing.  That's why they call these products "AI", they want you to think they're the same thing, despite having no other (non-marketing) links to each other.  Can you think of any other reason that these two are linked?

These algorithms are interpolation machines, really good at making answers to things within the bounds of their training data, but poor at extrapolating beyond that.  Their biggest practical applications are fun, pattern recognition and confusing legal systems (suddenly it's easy to do collusion, copyright infringement, working around examination rules, etc).

« Last Edit: January 22, 2025, 08:28:13 am by Whales »
 
The following users thanked this post: WillTurner, bdunham7

Online SiliconWizardTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 15984
  • Country: fr
Re: 500 freaking billions
« Reply #5 on: January 22, 2025, 08:55:40 am »
The algorithms are still nothing special - what makes them "powerful" is the gigantic amount of data, and that's why the new gold rush is data, data, and more data.
 

Offline tszaboo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8301
  • Country: nl
  • Current job: ATEX product design
Re: 500 freaking billions
« Reply #6 on: January 22, 2025, 09:05:56 am »
I hope it doesn't gain self-awareness.
There are much bigger and more urgent problems with AI and big data.
Companies already using it to maximize misery. How? By using it with dynamic pricing to find the maximum profit possible. And this is on our expense. For example hotels are using dynamic pricing, where they increase the room prices to extract as much money as possible from their customers. And they dynamically adjust the prices through some software, and all hotels are using this software. You cannot affor it anymore, but someone else will (while swearing a lot) and it's a win for the hotel. Why have 5 customers where you can have 4 with more profit?
And this is somehow not illegal, because you see, they don't sit together in one room, discussing how much the price should be, so it's not a cartel. They only do that with some API, so it's legal.
So that's what we using AI for.
Maximizing misery.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2025, 09:07:29 am by tszaboo »
 
The following users thanked this post: Siwastaja

Offline golden_labels

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1511
  • Country: pl
Re: 500 freaking billions
« Reply #7 on: January 22, 2025, 09:08:12 am »
But they didn’t use ChatGPT to write that PR blah blah? :o

I’m not moved by $500 bn being put fed into the project. This isn’t much.

What is more worrying, is the other end. Investors want their money back and they want them with a huge profit. Guess who is going to pay for that. :(
People imagine AI as T1000. What we got so far is glorified T9.
 
The following users thanked this post: XxMandragoraxX

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9131
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: 500 freaking billions
« Reply #8 on: January 22, 2025, 11:08:27 am »
The funding, purpose, design, and control will be done by oligarchs.
 
The following users thanked this post: Stray Electron, Analog Kid

Offline magic

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7532
  • Country: pl
Re: 500 freaking billions
« Reply #9 on: January 22, 2025, 11:38:17 am »
My tinfoil hat is whispering into my ear that "four years" and "in the United States" means "federal grants", considering recent events and The Man Who Must Not Be Named.
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9131
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: 500 freaking billions
« Reply #10 on: January 22, 2025, 11:42:45 am »
This is perhaps closer to an intended large investment by Foxconn in a Wisconsin site, but this time the oligarchs are probably interested in doing it to meet their own goals.
 

Offline wilfred

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1420
  • Country: au
Re: 500 freaking billions
« Reply #11 on: January 22, 2025, 12:45:28 pm »
I hope it doesn't gain self-awareness.
I know you have tongue firmly in cheek.

I think of AI and more like artificial stupidity. It is a giant pattern, or word frequency database that relies on volume of data to provide probabilities of word relationships to create the appearance of intelligence. But it has no conceptual understanding and cannot do more than give the appearance of understanding.

Which is perhaps the nearest it actually gets to human intelligence.

It is a tool that will reach a limit of cost savings more than anything else pretty quickly and then we'll all sit back a lament what a colossal waste of money, time and effort it was as we tried to push it into too many aspects of life. It might be good for things like checking banking transactions for fraudulent looking activities checking internet searches for possible new disease outbreaks very early. But is that really intelligence?

But all trump cares about is doing it before the Chinese, which harkens back to beating the Russians in the 1960's. At least back then it felt like a real achievement.
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10205
  • Country: gb
Re: 500 freaking billions
« Reply #12 on: January 22, 2025, 01:16:08 pm »
"Give me $500B and I will create something. I've no idea what it might be able to do, but I'll create something.". Wonderful project proposal.  :)
 
The following users thanked this post: Siwastaja

Offline Gyro

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10244
  • Country: gb
Re: 500 freaking billions
« Reply #13 on: January 22, 2025, 05:35:54 pm »
I hope it doesn't gain self-awareness.

If it does, it will probably die of embarrassment and performance anxiety.
Best Regards, Chris
 

Offline madires

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8347
  • Country: de
  • A qualified hobbyist ;)
Re: 500 freaking billions
« Reply #14 on: January 22, 2025, 05:53:28 pm »
Is building power plants part of their project? Otherwise they won't be able to power their pseudo AI.
 

Offline golden_labels

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1511
  • Country: pl
Re: 500 freaking billions
« Reply #15 on: January 22, 2025, 06:15:38 pm »
I think of AI and more like artificial stupidity. It is a giant pattern, or word frequency database that relies on volume of data to provide probabilities of word relationships to create the appearance of intelligence. But it has no conceptual understanding and cannot do more than give the appearance of understanding.

Which is perhaps the nearest it actually gets to human intelligence.

It is a tool that will reach a limit of cost savings more than anything else pretty quickly and then we'll all sit back a lament what a colossal waste of money, time and effort it was as we tried to push it into too many aspects of life. It might be good for things like checking banking transactions for fraudulent looking activities checking internet searches for possible new disease outbreaks very early. But is that really intelligence?
It isn’t going anywhere, because it already did establish its position even before the world heard about the few big generative networks.

Don’t confuse the entire branch of research and industry, with which the civilization is now intimately linked, and the two interwined happenings of recent years:
  • A few specific products and their offshoots. All extremely marketed, which is why laypeople know about them.
  • Making unfounded promises about such products’ imminent progress. About them turning into a concept taken from pop-culture, not the actual field.
With the ingress of opportunistists hoping for quick and easy money, it seems like yet another bubble. And I hope this bubble bursts. >:D But similar to ocean trade, railroads, or internet — all three of which were the subjects of legendary bubbles — the technology itself appear to not be at risk of falling into obscurity.


The final question is rhetorical, isn’t it? But, together with the mention of getting near the human intelligence, it begs to be replied. And it can’t be answered for the same reason that underpins ignosticism. Everybody believes they know what intelligence is. But when used outside of a specific field, it almost exclusively refers to a nebulous notion with no tangible meaning. Itself rooted in now antiquated ideas about human psychology: the consequence being that even if one manages to outline some discernable shape, it remains nonsensical.
People imagine AI as T1000. What we got so far is glorified T9.
 

Offline iMo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5652
  • Country: gw
Re: 500 freaking billions
« Reply #16 on: January 22, 2025, 06:40:35 pm »
..$100billion investment now for the marketing, and for remaining $400billion they will order the AI "Prodigy" chips for the new datacenters..  ;D
Readers discretion is advised..
 

Offline golden_labels

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1511
  • Country: pl
Re: 500 freaking billions
« Reply #17 on: January 22, 2025, 07:45:27 pm »
The internet bubble bursted, because money were in large part spent only on marketing and making promises. And I don’t see OpenAI producing anything more than empty promises. Do they have some secret technology they never revealed? They better do, because I don’t find anything suitable for the task on their shelves. So far the company seems to me like a peddler saying they will turn a rug into a space rocket, if only I pour enough gold into the pocket.

Perhaps it’s a very elaborate and beautiful rug. We may even know legends of flying carpets, and of pharaohs falling out of rugs. But, pardon if I’m talking bullshit due to not being an expert in either rugs or rockets, in my perhaps naïve perception you can’t turn a rug into a rocket. In a similar fashion I don’t see how you turn a language model into “AGI,” whichever reasonable definition of that term we accept. I also argue I know more about algorithms and statistics than I do about either rugs or rockets.

The beauty of OpenAI’s promise may lie in their use use of term “AGI” and how susceptible this term is to goalpost shifting.





« Last Edit: January 22, 2025, 07:48:04 pm by golden_labels »
People imagine AI as T1000. What we got so far is glorified T9.
 
The following users thanked this post: Siwastaja

Offline wilfred

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1420
  • Country: au
Re: 500 freaking billions
« Reply #18 on: January 22, 2025, 09:19:12 pm »
The final question is rhetorical, isn’t it? But, together with the mention of getting near the human intelligence, it begs to be replied. And it can’t be answered for the same reason that underpins ignosticism. Everybody believes they know what intelligence is. But when used outside of a specific field, it almost exclusively refers to a nebulous notion with no tangible meaning. Itself rooted in now antiquated ideas about human psychology: the consequence being that even if one manages to outline some discernable shape, it remains nonsensical.

I wasn't posing a rhetorical question. Is AI really intelligence? Sure it is using very powerful (and power hungry) silicon to match input to a prior store of data it has structured, and will match new input datasets with in order to "make sense" of it for some particular function. And it may well do it usefully to quickly and cheaply mimic what a human may do more slowly, or may not easily do at all if time and volume of data is a both limited and overwhelming. AI may even provide some insight that a subset of humans may not even have thought of or expected. Again is that intelligence? A human presented with something unexpected might reasonably think yes it is. But is it? Whatever it was that an AI machine extracted from the data was always there. AI did not produce something that did not previously exist by virtue of the volume of human generated data that was used to "train" it. It is not like it created an original thought. Something that was NOT in the data used to train it.

 If, or when, AI produces output such as an idea that is novel (to the machine) then I think I might start to think of it as intelligent, but until that happens it is just a machine that regurgitates whatever has been input. And when it has become largely trained on other AI input data that itself was created from data originally based on human input data then there will be a crunch point in advancement in AI development.

If self driving cars are a example of a specific application of AI then I would expect AI having been trained on what an animal crossing the road looks like and having never been trained to recognise a kangaroo, which moves very differently to a cow or moose or dog, to also recognise one as an animal. Same goes for an overturned truck on the road. It may not have been trained by data showing many (or any) overturned trucks but I would still expect the car to not run into it.

It is when AI makes inferences from its training data to situations not in the data it was trained with. And furthermore it should recognise that and develop a hypothesis on how to learn more. Just as a human would do. In simple terms it should know that it does not know.
 

Online coppercone2

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11462
  • Country: us
  • $
Re: 500 freaking billions
« Reply #19 on: January 22, 2025, 09:28:08 pm »
so you have linear computers, quantum computers and interpolation computers, similar to the UNN Von Braun

they are used to control the real AI ,but not the real AI  :o
 

Online SiliconWizardTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 15984
  • Country: fr
Re: 500 freaking billions
« Reply #20 on: January 23, 2025, 06:40:16 am »
The internet bubble bursted, because money were in large part spent only on marketing and making promises. And I don’t see OpenAI producing anything more than empty promises. Do they have some secret technology they never revealed? They better do, because I don’t find anything suitable for the task on their shelves. So far the company seems to me like a peddler saying they will turn a rug into a space rocket, if only I pour enough gold into the pocket.

Perhaps it’s a very elaborate and beautiful rug. We may even know legends of flying carpets, and of pharaohs falling out of rugs. But, pardon if I’m talking bullshit due to not being an expert in either rugs or rockets, in my perhaps naïve perception you can’t turn a rug into a rocket. In a similar fashion I don’t see how you turn a language model into “AGI,” whichever reasonable definition of that term we accept. I also argue I know more about algorithms and statistics than I do about either rugs or rockets.

The beauty of OpenAI’s promise may lie in their use use of term “AGI” and how susceptible this term is to goalpost shifting.

Yeah, well. Behind it there's SoftBank and Oracle. Isn't SoftBank very good at ruining companies usually? As to Oracle, don't get me started. :box:
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9131
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: 500 freaking billions
« Reply #21 on: January 23, 2025, 06:46:28 am »
In today’s news, oligarch Musk says the rival oligarchs in this consortium do not have sufficient resources.
Stay tuned.
 

Online Analog Kid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1402
  • Country: us
Re: 500 freaking billions
« Reply #22 on: January 23, 2025, 07:25:13 am »
In today’s news, oligarch Musk says the rival oligarchs in this consortium do not have sufficient resources.
Stay tuned.

And yet Musk is the one who's warning us about the dangers of AI taking over the human race.
Does that show how schizoid the guy is?
 

Offline magic

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7532
  • Country: pl
Re: 500 freaking billions
« Reply #23 on: January 23, 2025, 08:48:32 am »
oligarch
oligarchs
I must say, one thing I like about this whole Orange Mango saga is that people are finally starting to see the system for what it is :D

And yet Musk is the one who's warning us about the dangers of AI taking over the human race.
Does that show how schizoid the guy is?
This was a thing for a long time between AI cultists like the OpenAI crowd. I don't even think Musk is the craziest of them. (I mean, he certainly is not, this title goes to Yudkowski et al, obviously).
« Last Edit: January 23, 2025, 08:53:42 am by magic »
 

Offline Marco

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7089
  • Country: nl
Re: 500 freaking billions
« Reply #24 on: January 23, 2025, 09:53:40 am »
Sam Altman proving himself the god emperor of grifting.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf