Y Combinator's Stake in OpenAI (0.6%?) (opens in new tab)

> So what does the true definition of "AGI" actually mean? It depends on who you ask.

AGI - Automatically Generating Income

> So what does the true definition of "AGI" actually mean?

No worries, there will be a startup creating "AGI Bench", >=80% means you're AGI, they will be valued $50B.

> So what does the true definition of "AGI" actually mean? It depends on who you ask.

When Greg Brockman makes a lot of money from the deal.

First do 80%, then do the remaining 150%, I would imagine

That's the trick right? What do they really mean by AGI. Depending on how narrow you go, it sounds like we've already achieved it. However, if they keep saying they'll achieve it and not defining it before making such statements that determine what it is, they can keep saying it endlessly to create hype.

One key thing I've heard about AGI which I think would be the most determining factor for me is a model that learns on the fly. Which could be done one way or another, but when you consider that LLMs basically run like "ROM" files, it makes it a little complicated.

I think we need to re-imagine how LLMs are built, train, and run. But also, figure out how to drastically lower the cost of running them.

> So what does the true definition of "AGI" actually mean?

If your stake is > 30 billion seems more of a reasonable and realistic criteria to me.

AGI is defined as whatever it takes for stock holders to make $$$ I guess?

One of the random tidbits I can remember from the New Yorker Altman deep dive was Brockman being obsessed about making $1B dollars. It was memorable because I actually cringed reading it.

""Artificial General Intelligence" which has been clearly hijacked to mean something else."

I mean, the goalposts shifted. The game Go used to be considered to require true AI. Passing the turing test. Scanning, analyzing and improving complex codebases largely on their own would have been considered some sort of AGI by me 6 years ago.

Now sure, we all know they lack true understanding. But it gets blurry at times what that does mean.

But I don't buy that there will be a magic point, where self improving AGI explodes towards singularity. The current approach is very, very energy and compute intense and that is unlikely to change.

Same with me. I found a new hobby: reading pre-LLM HN. It turns out I missed so many interesting projects and discussions. Some are a bit funny in hindsight, some are inspiring.

At the same time, the current version of HN is still usable, you just need to mentally filter LLM-related stuff. It was similar with cryptocurrencies TBH.

The only thing that should be surprising to anyone who knows about the early history of OpenAI is how little of it YC owns, given how much it leveraged YC’s credibility to get started (early employees joined an institution called “YC Research”, operating from YC’s office space). Once that stake is divided up among all the LPs and small unit holders, it’s not a huge outcome.

Also: nothing gets sustained attention on HN unless good hackers find it interesting. Our entire objective is to be the website that attracts the best hackers, serves them the most interesting content and facilitates the most interesting discussions. That can’t happen if we’re nefariously pushing a commercial agenda.

One more (for me, and definitely for many others since I've seen similar posts):

It's letting me build stuff I probably wouldn't be able to build by myself without raising lots of money for way cheaper, at least until GitHub Copilot gets incredibly nerfed next month.

sorry everyone, sometimes i go down these rabbit holes

…or many people are using the products day to day in their work as IT professionals or developers?

I think it’s mostly the above, rather than a capitalist conspiracy, or in its relevance as a scientific curiosity.

Please don’t post snark on HN. Gary is, objectively, an AI expert. He’s been a leading researcher for decades and sold an AI company to Uber. He obviously sees things differently from the current generation of AI company leaders and has concerns about the direction of the AI industry. That doesn’t mean it’s fine to disrespect someone like this here. The first rule of the “In Comments” section of the guidelines is be kind.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[flagged]

Such suspicious phrasing lol. So you’re saying Paul Graham and his wife Jessica have 800 MILLION dollars worth of OpenAI stock, and that’s not so significant?

What is 0.1% of a trillion? I think that's quite a large number still.

Does Paul Graham no longer have a stake in Y Combinator?

My understanding is dang has said in the past they do some anti moderation(I’m sure he has a better term) for posts related to ycombinator. That is to say they moderate less and might, do not quote me here, even boost a tad. So upvoted story by a well reputed source even without many comments is likely to hang onto the front page for a bit.

The actual content of the post is straightforward and not particularly novel — YC has a stake in OpenAI, that creates a conflict of interest, and the New Yorker is negligent (in the informal sense) for not putting that in their piece.

It’s a sobering reminder and worthy of being on the front page on that basis alone, but I don’t see much of a discussion to be had. “Unusually quiet for a front page post” is probably where this post is meant to be.

Do you have something to say about it?

You would be incorrect.

I disagree there tons of early stage investors who even invest before YC you can find them on OpenVC

Ronan Farrow and Andrew Marantz had a critical investigative report in The New Yorker on Sam Altman and OpenAI last month asking whether Altman could be trusted.

Paul Graham of Y-Combinator in response tweeted some positive things about Altman, emphasising that they didn't fire him as CEO of YC (though not going as far as declaring him trustworthy).

Now John Gruber of DaringFireball (an Apple blog) added context by claiming that YC owns a 0.6% stake in OpenAi, worth around $5bn, which might colour Graham's judgement.

why non-AI? If AI is arguably great at something, it's this.