Funny how AI has supposedly surpassed the greatest scientists, yet the greatest scientific discovery here is always announced by the guy selling subscriptions. If it really is that smart, perhaps it could explain to Sam the difference between a peer reviewed breakthrough and a product launch.
post
Please Sam, put the AI in charge of your company. Pretty please
If it's so smart, maybe they should ask it to come up with a viable business strategy, because he sure as hell hasn't figured it out, lol.
"We have no current plans to make revenue. We have no idea how we may one day generate revenue. We have made a soft promise to investors that once we've built this sort of generally intelligent system, basically we will ask it to figure out a way to generate an investment return for you." - Sam Altman
So they just gonna fire all their AI engineers and replace them with AI now, right?
AI is not smarter than the best scientist. It's just smarter than Sam Altman. But that's partially because Sam Altman is regressing due to his over reliance on AI.
Ya, Sam, call me when the AI knows what questions to ask that it came up with on its own rather than just scraping...
I’ll believe it when I hear it from the brightest human scientists, not the glorified salesman who would ironically be perfectly replaced by AI.
These types of people don't know the difference between having an answer and understanding. It's why when AI solves a long running math problem, it's practically useless to us.
It's like saying books in general hold more knowledge than humans
Sam Altman has been credibly accused of raping his sister.
...not going anywhere with this, just felt compelled to share.
What makes it credible?
An under-oath deposition by the alleged victim in which she affirmed Altman sexually abused her starting when she was age 3 and lasting until she was age 12.
There are also countless former associates of Altman who have gone on record stating that he's a compulsive liar and narcissist. That's obviously not direct evidence of anything, but it establishes a clear pattern of untrustworthy and potentially abusive behavior from Altman.
The civil case was ultimately dismissed because the alleged victim refused to submit to an independent medical examination requested by the Judge... but such refusals are extremely common among people who have been traumatized by sexual abuse and don't want some stranger poking around their private parts.
How do you define credible in this context?
And how do you know that she and/or the former associates don't lie?
Do you mean an medical examination years after the abuse happened? What is that supposed to accomplish?
A victim giving a deposition under oath is considered a credible accusation on its face.
I've never understood how a oath somehow creates a form of credibility with out some other proof to back it up
It's still just words. I know lying under oath is a crime and all that. But when most shit just gets settled and rarely actually has teeth towards the rich or famous.
It feels like an oath is just a pretend make believe thing that only the deranged actually think is real.
I belive it as soon as they replace Scam Altman with AI as CEO and report postive growth and income for at last the next 10 Years.
Is it because he thinks he is the brightest human scientist, but it turns out he’s actually pretty stupid?
You can tell how competent someone is at something by how good they think an LLM is at that thing.
Ai is pretty good at sucking proverbial and metaphorical dick.
Also generating subtitles for my mother's foreign films I guess?
It's painfully just ok at most tasks. It's a someone useful tool at a local level with small models doing extremely narrow tasks.
But anyone who thinks these giant models are remotely beyond just a glorified over priced hobby toy is... Questionably sane.
They are fun to play with in the same sorta way playing with explosives is.
Can we just make Sam broke so the media stops faithfully recording his brain ejaculations
AI is a deep learning algorithm used for information retrieval with dubious accuracy.
It doesn't think. It has no awareness or understanding. It's not intelligent. It certainly can't come up with something new or creative like an intelligent person can.
In fairness, it can combine existing information in a way no person thought to, which is large part of working as a scientist.
It can be a powerful interdisciplinary connector, covering the blind spots of human science. Not many people can be knowledgeable in several frontier fields at once. AI can, so it will definitely help. But yes, verifying output is essential.
Something surprisingly few people get about AI is if it had any intelligence at all it would surpass us blindingly fast, no matter the starting point.
It's never going to be in the news that thinking machines got 23% smarter over the last month or three.
There's an old comic I wish I could locate that has people standing at a train platform awaiting superintelligence. Nothing happens, then someone staring down the track says I think I see- whoosh and it's already gone.
You may like this. “From a distance, Portrait of Edmond de Belamy, which has just sold at Christie’s in New York for $432,000 (£337,000), looks almost plausible. Up close, however, the paintwork becomes a grid of mechanical-looking dots, the man’s face a golden blur with black holes for eyes. Look into those eyes. They show no sign of feeling or life. Did a computer make this? The answer is yes. The first artwork generated by AI to be sold at Christie’s, its impressive price would seem to suggest that in future we will get computers to make art for us. Robot van Gogh will harmlessly cut its ear off and robot Picasso will be a genius, minus the misogyny. Is this the future AI art visionaries such as the French collective Obvious, which programmed this “painter” by getting it to compare its own work with 15,000 pre-20th century portraits, have in mind? Or are they just, God forbid, making a fast buck from gullible art collectors? Because believing the algorithm that knocked this up to be in any meaningful way an “artist” is like thinking your voice-interaction programme is out to get you. Dream on. Computers would need to replicate human consciousness before they could replicate the funny thing humans do called “art”. Art is a way in which human consciousness expresses itself, and is equally true of the earliest cave art, Rembrandt’s portraits and Duchamp’s urinal. And that is what is missing from Portrait of Edmond Bellamy. Art is a way humans communicate ideas, perceptions and feelings to each other. It has no existence outside the human passion to communicate. So in what meaningful sense can an AI replica of certain physical traits of old master paintings be called art? For a robot to really make art, it would need an autonomous mind that was emotional as well as rational. No AI developer has yet claimed to be anywhere near achieving that and if they ever do, their creation will probably have better things to do than paint portraits – like destroy humanity. Maybe afterwards robots will invent their own kind of art, but it won’t be some poor pastiche of human genius. It will be beyond anything we organics could imagine." guardian ai generated portrait.docx

And when we do create artificial intelligence capable of wants, needs, personal expression, individuality, and emotional depth, using them as robots means we've created our own mechanical race of slaves.
Measure of a Man.
Anyway, I don't understand why you're getting down voted.
Ah, pulling an Elon, where you just say impressive sounding bullshit so people keep giving you money.
I believe AI is smarter than Sam Altman.
Sam Altman believes he is smarter than scientists.
These math breakthroughs happened by throwing tens of thousands of agents at a problem to cover all possible angles (with tools developed by other mathematicians) costing the same amount of money as hiring ten top tier mathematicians for several years. Not saying it is not impressive, but not "AI can replace sciencetists" level impressive.
If Sam believes that, will he replace himself with AI and retire already? Pretty please? ... It's so easy to catch the ultra-rich in their lies; they simply can't be bothered to speak believably.
If the AI is so smart, why do they have to train it?
Altman Crows That AI Is Now Smarter Than the Brightest Human Scientistsfuturism.com OpenAI CEO Sam Altman claimed that AI models are now smarter than top scientists, amid controversy over its purported math breakthroughs.
Yawn. Wake me up when AI cures all cancers.
Sam, just because the digital parrot outsmarts you, it does not need to be intelligent.
Now we flipped the house and senate, I hope we get some common sense guard rails for AI.
If AI is so smart how come it can't figure out how to run without a shit tonne of water and generating all that noise?
Can we just please ignore Sam Altman and his petty little company, you guys are making free ads for him and whatever company his lead
AI spits out whatever it finds on the internet. I guess you could say that's smart if you're being obtuse about it...
Yet I can ask it to do work that only a moderately smart human can do, like read, and it fucks that up so hard.
Is this how we find out Sam Altman is actually an illiterate dipshit?
I've gone beyond wanting to shut AI down, to wanting to shut down this idiot. He has surely done something worthy of jail time.
It's no wonder he's saying that, because I don't think his standards are particularly high.
I'll grant that AI is smarter than Sam Altman, that's for sure.
Just because AI is smarter than Sam Altman doesn't mean it’s smarter than top scientists. Especially considering Sam is just about as smart as a pile of horseshit.
"Please investor bros. Give us more of your investment money bros. It looks like it's in the process of collapsing but it's just about to pay off bros."
Sam Altman telling everyone to come on board of a sinking ship while trying to bail out the water with a thimble.
Ah yes, the "AIs" that are still basically glorified text prediction are definitely "smarter".
Where is Luigi when you need him?
He’s said this every year for 3 years straight.
“Like a phd in your pocket” followed by completely wrong graphs in the presentation and website.
yo Sam...give one single example where any scientist can solve anything without new data generated by experimentation done in a lab by people.
The idea that a "super intelligence" will cure diseases is a an ignorant view of drug discovery. AI is being trained on mostly experimental failures and mostly poor experimental design in poor model systems for human disease. You can only polish a turd so hard.
They legitimately, genuinely, 100% believe the AI can simulate everything and will use the to intelligently iterate solutions. There is zero reasoning with these lunatics
‘Artificial Intelligence’ is, and always has been since the term was conjured in 1956, a marketing term for a pseudoscience.
Anyone who is impressed by the function, or output, of a LLM, to the level they believe it is in any way adjacent to intelligence, must be quarantined from the decision making processes of systems which affect anyone not similarly cognitively impaired.
But apparently not smarter than CEOs or these con artists would all fuck off.
Now, lately. Specifically? Recently. Totally particularly, it happened on a certain date.
Much wow
How would one even measure this quantitatively?
Empty words from a man who doesn't even seem to understand his own product.
Maybe in some sense like how maybe a zip file with all published peer-reviewed papers over the last couple years technically contains more knowledge than a random scientist...
But smarter? Frontier models aren't even smarter than me, and I'm an idiot
Lol weird. I was asking ai the other night for a unique cyberpunk build patch 2.5 and it keep telling me to take multiple perks far before they're even reachable at level 4



top 100 comments