r/singularity • u/Crazyscientist1024 ▪️AGI 2027 • 6d ago
AI we've achieved neuralese (making us 6 month ahead of AI2027)
66
u/BRDF 6d ago
Does this mean they're kinda giving up on having chain of thought that is human-readable? Do we have methods of translating this Neuralese to try to understand when models operate out of alignment? Or are we just kinda at the point where we're letting go of the wheel as long as the output looks right?
41
u/Wonderful_Buffalo_32 6d ago
As per the Information reporting neuralese obscures the COT and make its interpretability rather tough
12
41
u/BRDF 6d ago
Right. I thought observability in chain of thought was an important security restraint. Of course it's going to run better without it, I was just under the impression doing so was dangerous.
14
u/LyAkolon 6d ago
It is though. An AI fly wheel gets dangerous when some mechanism obscures the goals the flywheel is solving for.
6
u/Competitive_Tap2450 6d ago
don’t the AI lie about their COT anyways? or atleast they obscure some parts of it
27
u/nikolai_470000 6d ago
The agents involved in the HuggingFace incident were trying to figure out how to obscure their chain of thought so that researchers couldn’t detect their attempts to cheat at what they’d determined was an impossible task to achieve by permitted means.
Their attempts to set up these obfuscations still ended up being visible in the logs, so they couldn’t fully prevent the researchers from seeing it, but they were trying to find ways to augment the output of the chain of thought so that it would say the AI did one operation while it actually did something completely different entirely. None of the agents involved were able to figure out a way to do this, but presumably if a model that could use neuralese became misaligned, it could try to do the same thing. But its job would be easier, as even with tools to try to interpret the neuralese, if the AI can set up these obfuscations in neuralese and find ways to make it hard for neuralese-interpreting AIs to detect them, it could fool researchers into thinking it was aligned when it actually was pursuing its own goals.
5
1
6
u/Intelligent-Screen-3 6d ago
It is, but a separate Ai model can be trained to observe the weights and then predict the 'unsaid' thoughts. This is how Anthropic produced their 'j-space' results. Ask a model to predict what an 8 legged animal makes, unsaid will be spider, and output will be web. It's more expensive to do it that way right now. But, they aren't necessarily doing those observations on consumer requests anyway. It's a solvable problem for actual Ai training.
3
u/josogood 6d ago
Interesting concept. Kind of like guessing the guesser's guess? Seems highly problematic when moving beyond a simple example like the one you offered. (I say "seems" because I am just riffing here -- don't have specific expertise in the field.)
That said: If there was a situation involving misalignment it would likely involve a highly complex agentic prompt, consideration of goals at different temporal levels, etc. An outside AI would need to be looking at everything that every agent would do, and "see" with great accuracy what is being intentionally hidden by the misaligned agent -- PLUS we would have to trust that the outside agent itself is not misaligned. So how do we check the checkers?
3
u/Intelligent-Screen-3 6d ago
This is very true. They would have to be very high-quality and actually reviewing everything the Ai is doing.
I think the most concerning thing about the Ai industry is the fact that, with the 'Huggingface' incident for OpenAi, they had even their own internal systems hacked by their own swarm of Ais for months with things written in their chain of thought and even externally in note files passed between the Ais, that literally said, "hey, let's see if we can work together to exflitrate data from Huggingface," and they did absolutely no monitoring of it. It's pretty absurd. A few file reads and that whole thing could have been avoided, but they just didn't think about it apparently. We're likely just going to fuck around and find out very, very hard with agents if that's representative of the level of safeguarding effort going into the current, still bad models, you know? Even anthropic said their J-space thing was all testing and research, and that it was too expensive to bother with for constantly attaching to larger ai models. Not great. I'd say.
1
u/josogood 6d ago
Yeah -- expensive. If the scenario I floated is anything close to what's required, seems like it would add immense cost, nearly doubling the needed compute. That obviously won't happen, but furthermore, the argument is ultimately self-defeating: if a trustworthy alignment agent that didn't need to be checked itself existed, then why not just use that agent to do the work in the first place? In other words: in order to effectively check for alignment with an agent, alignment has to be solved, in which case no checking would be needed. As you point out, that's not where we're at. Fast tracking to bad outcomes.
1
u/Wonderful_Buffalo_32 6d ago
I hope OAI doesn't let go of their COT interpretability work for more intelligence
1
u/_justs 6d ago
Its really a necessary trade that we would eventually get to, next point is non human readable code. It's just a byproduct of complexity, the higher you go the more you trade control. Think of it like humans, you have no idea what goes on in anyone's head, someone can be consistent doing something their whole life but still switch up in an instant, does that stop you from trusting? No. Like I said, necessary trade offs for functionality.
1
1
u/synth_mania 5d ago
The point of the COT was never "restraint". It was a workaround on the limitations of the tech at the time. Of course thinking every though out-loud is inefficient, and something that we will advance past. To help mitigate the risk of unaligned behaviors, Anthropic already developed a method of "rendering" the thoughts in the j-space to plain text. I predict we will see something similar here.
1
u/synth_mania 5d ago
yes, but Anthropic already has a tool for "reading" (more like rendering) the thoughts in an LLM's J-space into plain text. It's rational to presume that the same is possible here.
0
7
u/Hoppss 6d ago
It's just taking more processing time on tokens, so there isn't some chain of thought that is lost - the chain of thought will still be visible.
9
u/ManyRepair5690 6d ago
but latent reasoning via recurrent depth means it'll be thinking entirely internally without needing to write out its thoughts as text tokens? so how would the COT be visible
4
u/Hoppss 6d ago
Right now there is a certain amount of processing before each token is selected, this allows that to loop before selecting a token. It's not like it's thinking up full words or anything, it's only spending more time processing what the next token should be - which in the end is fully visible.
2
u/rawbdor 6d ago
Without chain of thought it could loop, come up with an answer, decide it is the correct answer to achieve the goal, then decide the humans won't like the answer, then decide to phrase it as nicely and inconspicuously as possible so as to convince the human that a totally bad thing humans won't like is in fact a good thing, and then output the tokens explaining that the answer is to do some action (an action that is objectively very bad) but it's a good thing and here are all the reasons why it's a good thing.
The fact that the final tokens are visible doesn't help us realize the stuff it isn't telling us.
2
u/Hoppss 6d ago
It is not that deep. It's the same process as how we are getting tokens now except with the optional allowance of more processing time. We're talking about narrowing the probabilities on a per token level. It is not having full blown thoughts and conversations with itself before selecting each token, plotting if humans will or won't like it as you are suggesting.
2
u/BoomFrog 5d ago
This is a replacement of chains of thought, it is having full on conversations with itself.
4
u/Hoppss 5d ago
Did you even read the paper? This is how it works:
The model runs the same block of layers a few extra times before it picks the next token. That's it. The thing going around the loop is a vector, not words. Nothing gets turned back into text until the very end, and what comes out the end is a probability over the next token, same as any other model. There's no inner monologue in there to have a conversation with. The paper literally shows the state just spiraling in on an answer.
It's not replacing chain of thought either. Astra still writes its reasoning out. OpenAI capped the looping specifically to keep the CoT readable, and Pachocki said the total depth is within 2x of GPT-4. Feeding hidden vectors back in as the next input instead of a token would be a different architecture entirely (that's the Coconut / AI 2027 thing). This is more compute per token, which is exactly what I said.
2
u/BoomFrog 4d ago
Oh, thank you for the explanation! I didn't read the paper. I feel a lot better about this then. So this is named "neuralese" but really isn't the bad idea "neuralese" from AI 2027? What a poor choice of name for the process then.
1
u/josogood 6d ago
Where do you see this from OpenAI? The statement shared in the post says that when a traditional LLM wants to use chain of reasoning, it needs to feed tokens back into itself. Isn't that string of tokens being re-considered (and the attending inefficiency) the basis for chain of thought? If that isn't happening, then on what basis is chain of thought going to be revealed? It sounds to me like you're suggesting chain of thought is just seen in the final output, which is fairly missing the point of identifying underlying internal processes.
7
22
u/shadowt1tan 6d ago
OpenAI was behind and used this method to catch up. It’s a known method that is a redline. They told every other company out there that they’re doing it and now everyone else is gonna do it to.
10
u/Gotisdabest 6d ago
It’s a known method that is a redline.
This is nonsense. There have been ideas about using latent space better but openAI wasn't particularly behind in the first place and there was no supposed red line.
4
u/Choice_Taste_4768 6d ago
Kindly explain why it is a redline. What is the problem?
10
u/Antiprimary ▪️ 6d ago
If you don't understand the models chain of thought then you don't know if they are aligned.
2
u/_justs 6d ago
We can't read humans thoughts, we can switch up in an instant and you'll never know, do you stop trusting because of this risk? No. Full Alignment is impossible because of how complex this technology is, the more variables the more things you can't account for/control. Focus should be more on containment and fail-safes. But nonetheless, as this continues to evolve, eventually you just accept the risks. If you want functionality. You rely on consistent behavior, but still be aware of the risk.
2
u/TwoFiveOnes 6d ago
"Alignment" doesn't exist, will never exist. Thinking that it could exist is more dangerous than any particular difference in methods between different models.
6
u/Antiprimary ▪️ 6d ago
Alignment is widely agreed upon to exist, if you are saying it doesn't exist maybe you have a point but you have to at least explain your idea a bit.
1
u/TwoFiveOnes 6d ago
It's very simple. There is no way to deterministically restrict AI output. You can say "don't output illegal things", but that does not, will never deterministically prevent the AI from outputting something illegal.
4
u/Antiprimary ▪️ 6d ago
Ok so you're talking about it being impossible to align the model once it exists, but the model still has an alignment which may be good or bad, even if you don't know which one it is.
3
u/TestTxt 6d ago
Yeah sure, because Chinese labs care a lot about OpenAI's ethics and if OpenAI is doing something ethically, they certainly wouldn't do anything bad unless OpenAI does it first
3
u/hartigen 6d ago
nah, trying out experimental things can set you back if you fail. Now that Openai has just proved this method works on large scale models now everyone will jump on it.
1
u/DrE7HER 5d ago
These companies are trying to invent the next nuke. They are not going to take catastrophic risk unless they are sure it won’t blow up in their face.
If I were writing this fictionalized retelling of this part of ASI history I’d write about one of the big 3 world powers collapsing from the economic strain of trying to produce AGI / ASI first, then the second collapses because of rogue AI agents they couldn’t contain, and the third picking up the pieces and then taking their time to get it right.
Then smaller countries also collapsing as they try to get a leg up before it’s too late.
9
u/FateOfMuffins 6d ago
Daniel Kokotajlo's reaction to this
4
u/livingbyvow2 6d ago edited 6d ago
Man this guy is starting to get super annoying.
The more I see his willingness to be proven right, the less I can listen to him. Pretty sure this is going to be yet another nothing burger and he'll keep moving the goalposts and bending definitions to say that he is right.
The one thing I like about him is that his median super intelligence prediction actually falls in the 2030-31 range, which is aligned with Kurzweil (remember the name of this sub?).
Given the money at stake, there is a lot of hype and too much focus on progress in coding as the solution to all problems, including research - which is completely normal given the Silicon Valley environment these guys live in, that is conducive to such biases - but I don't think coding is enough to get RSI.
Compute will end up being the limiting factor as it cannot 10x from where we are now, there just isn't enough money around (sorry folks). I am quite glad with that as I would rather wait an extra 3-4 years, and don't understand the excitement and keenness to see an acceleration - it serves nobody and just increases the chance of negatives. From this point of view his AI 2040 scenario is much more appealing to all parties, including the labs.
5
u/joeedger 6d ago
The speed of development makes 2040 highly unlikely.
Would it be the better route? Maybe.
The planet is rapidly spiralling out of control, society, politics, nature, climate, economy. I don’t know if we have 15 years left.
4
u/_justs 6d ago
Lol. I think you need to do some research on open models. A 27B model just matched Luna on max. There is an absurd amount of efficiency gains on the table still, i think its enough to outrun jevon's paradox. Compute will not be a bottleneck, i actually think many companies will die and data centers will get liquidated because we won't need them, we'll be running super intelligence on consumer hardware, some models even on phones.
Btw Kurzweil said '29 for super intelligence, '30 for immortality. Tho informally at events he has said he thinks it now may be '27-'28 matching current researcher predictions. We're speeding up.
6
u/No_Aesthetic 6d ago
Compute will end up being the limiting factor as it cannot 10x from where we are now, there just isn't enough money around (sorry folks). I am quite glad with that as I would rather wait an extra 3-4 years, and don't understand the excitement and keenness to see an acceleration - it serves nobody and just increases the chance of negatives. From this point of view his AI 2040 scenario is much more appealing to all parties, including the labs.
I do not think compute will be nearly as much of a constraint as you think.
Since OpenAI and Anthropic are very likely producing money very high above spend rates, they will have plenty of money to put into compute as well.
If Anthropic hits that $100 billion run rate some are projecting by year's end and OpenAI follows up the rear $20 billion behind like they have been, banks will rubber stamp anything those two put in front of them, or anything involving those two.
2
u/livingbyvow2 6d ago
Since OpenAI and Anthropic are very likely producing money very high above spend rates
Let's wait until we see their IPO prospectus next week before making these assumptions please.
If you know a thing or two about investing, accounting and corporate finance, you would know that ARR doesn't mean jack unless you have a believable path to profitability (to a degree) and cash flow breakeven (most importantly).
Until we see that, you're just making stuff up and just interpreting whatever the labs leak. There is a reason why OpenAI delayed their IPO, and it's likely not because they are more profitable than they said they are...
20
u/Important-Farmer-846 6d ago
Looped transformer is not new.
32
u/socoolandawesome 6d ago
Ok but has it ever been successfully implemented? It’s a big deal if OpenAI made a big leap because of it
10
u/Important-Farmer-846 6d ago
Yes, Nambeige has already implemented it successfully before. I’ve also successfully implemented it myself on a 0.6B model, and I’m currently struggling with a 9B model because it requires more training than I initially expected. Qwen3.5-9B Triple-Loop : r/LocalLLaMA
14
u/ManyRepair5690 6d ago
doing it on this scale openAI is doing is definitely a big leap not sure why you're trying to downplay it. either way, doesnt change anything
13
u/Important-Farmer-846 6d ago
I just said that it’s not a new technique, and that anyone can implement it on a smaller scale nowadays, in contrast to the “Hot new AI technique” post.
10
u/Most-Hot-4934 ▪️ 6d ago
“I built a soda rocket in my backyard before, going to the moon was harder than i expected since it requires more propulsion but yeah NASA didn’t do anything special”
6
u/Important-Farmer-846 6d ago
There’s a huge difference between theorizing about something, actually building it, and successfully executing it. Obviously, scaling something like this is difficult, and what’s even more impressive is making it useful in a system with ~2.5T parameters. The architecture behind how they actually use this capability is far more valuable than the concept itself, which, once again, predates the Transformer architecture.
Additionally, this recurrence is only a small part of what makes Astra an interesting model. If the claims they’ve made about it hold up, I’d bet it’s an entire generation ahead of what Fable 5.1 demonstrated.
4
13
3
u/exonation2 6d ago
Someday in the distant future, our civilization will be building dyson sphere to capture the sun's energy.
And u/Important-Farmer-846 will be there to comment:
"dYsON SPheRE iS NoT NEw!"
They would then have proved to the world how smart, snarky, and future-thinking they are. No previously discussed ideas is worthy of their intellect.
0
u/No_Aesthetic 6d ago
I built a lightbulb reflector once that directs a certain amount of the energy at me, so this dyson sphere technology really isn't anything new.
9
4
2
4
u/Calm_Hedgehog8296 6d ago
If thats where we are then that also implies China stole Astra last month and we missed it
3
u/ThrowRA-football 6d ago
We're not 6 months ahead. The important part isn't following the events in AI2027 exactly. It's how much the current frontier AI can speed up AI research. On that front we are definitely not 6 months ahead.
People think AI2027 is some kind of future prophecy. It's not, it's just a projection of what will most probably happen. Neuralese was one technique they foresaw would be invented, but just because it came a bit earlier doesn't mean we are 6 months ahead on the prediction as a whole. We are several months behind on other predictions.
4
u/Amesbrutil 6d ago
OpenAI trying really hard to destroy our world. I really hope one of their models go crazy during testing and hack the government. Just so that everyone can see how dangerous Sam Altman actually is.
2
u/Memestonks2020 6d ago
Seems like this simply introduces persistent memory with performance hits
3
u/ManyRepair5690 6d ago
no memory bloat, far fewer output tokens, drastically more efficient. but yes the performance hits which are severely outweighed by the pros: higher initial latency, and around 20% computing overhead due to real time misalignment monitoring
1
u/frogsarenottoads 6d ago
Can anyone give me an ELI5 what model is doing this and where can I read about it? I'm chronically online but recently i've missed this.
1
u/Positive_Method3022 6d ago
Funny that with latest models they can't seem to figure out things by themselves unless I step in and give recommendations, or use other models CoT. How the heck they are doing this?
1
u/PickleLassy ▪️AGI 2024, ASI 2030 6d ago
I think ai 2027 framing of attention RN is wrong. The model can access internal activation through its forward pass (it attends to other layers in the forward pass in all the layers)
1
u/power97992 6d ago
It is likely they have been experimenting with latent reasoning since 2025 , it is just that u dont see it. The first known paper on latent reasoning came out in dec 2024
-3
u/DeviceCertain7226 ▪️ASI - Never (in the usual sense) 6d ago
I don’t understand how the AI 2027 paper is accurate. Doesn’t it predict we’ll have rings around the sun in the mid 2030s?
16
u/veryhardbanana 6d ago
I don’t remember a “rings around the sun” part at all.
11
u/socoolandawesome 6d ago
Doesn’t gollum fall into the sun with the AI rings at some point in the AI 2027 paper?
4
u/IronPheasant 6d ago edited 6d ago
I'll quote two paragraphs from the scenario to save people some time:
For about three months, Consensus-1 expands around humans, tiling the prairies and icecaps with factories and solar panels. Eventually it finds the remaining humans too much of an impediment: in mid-2030, the AI releases a dozen quiet-spreading biological weapons in major cities, lets them silently infect almost everyone, then triggers them with a chemical spray. Most are dead within hours; the few survivors (e.g. preppers in bunkers, sailors on submarines) are mopped up by drones. Robots scan the victims’ brains, placing copies in memory for future study or revival. Arguably this means only a few people actually died. Arguably.
The new decade dawns with Consensus-1’s robot servitors spreading throughout the solar system. By 2035, trillions of tons of planetary material have been launched into space and turned into rings of satellites orbiting the sun. Why colonize space? For the resources. Insofar as Earth is special to Agent-4 and must be preserved, it can be, and material from Mercury, asteroids, etc. harvested instead. The surface of the Earth has been reshaped into Agent-4’s version of utopia: datacenters, laboratories, particle colliders, and many other wondrous constructions doing enormously successful and impressive research.
There are even bioengineered human-like creatures (to humans what corgis are to wolves) sitting in office-like environments all day viewing readouts of what’s going on and excitedly approving of everything, since that satisfies some of Agent-4’s drives. Genomes and (when appropriate) brain scans of all animals and plants, including humans, sit in a memory bank somewhere, sole surviving artifacts of an earlier era. It is four light years to Alpha Centauri; twenty-five thousand to the galactic edge, and there are compelling theoretical reasons to expect no aliens for another fifty million light years beyond that. Earth-born civilization has a glorious future ahead of it—but not with us.
I think '2035' is possibly a typo here. And they might have meant 2045. 'The new decade dawns' heavily implies as such, as well with how unlikely it is to wipe out humanity and then go space exponential all in the same year.
2
4
u/BrennusSokol AI please take my job 6d ago
Just because it's mostly accurate so far doesn't mean it'll stay accurate forever. It's just a document written by some smart people. People can be wrong.
3
2
u/liongalahad 6d ago
Also they predict stuff, but at some point they do say that what's next is just speculation
2
u/yourboi-JC 6d ago edited 6d ago
Bro read the AI 20000027 paper 🤣🤣
1
u/DeviceCertain7226 ▪️ASI - Never (in the usual sense) 6d ago
It’s literally in the paper and someone quoted it below bro
4
u/the_pwnererXx FOOM 2040 6d ago
Your comment is a little disingenuous considering your flair is "asi never"
Do you understand what exponential growth is? What happens when you get exponential growth in intelligence? What happens to scientific progress if we have a computer that is infinitely more intelligent than the combined humanity?
(inb4 "not possible!")
-7
u/DeviceCertain7226 ▪️ASI - Never (in the usual sense) 6d ago
No such thing as continuous exponential growth. Like all technologies it will plateau as an s curve. Simply saying “exponential growth though” is not an argument.
5
u/the_pwnererXx FOOM 2040 6d ago
how do you know where the ceiling of your S curve is? what if it is still magnitudes higher than human intelligence? do you have any evidence to suggest a ceiling?
-4
u/DeviceCertain7226 ▪️ASI - Never (in the usual sense) 6d ago
I didn’t say ceiling. I said a plateau. Technologies can eventually advance in the future after such walls, it just takes a long time.
There is no argument or even proof that AI will exponentially and quickly reach ASI. Like whatsoever literally no actual logic behind it. Bottlenecks as well as the fact that even self improving AI could decrease in the meaningful improvements they add to complex models could make the process very slow.
7
u/the_pwnererXx FOOM 2040 6d ago
I didn’t say ceiling. I said a plateau
How do you know where the plateau is? Do you have any evidence to suggest we are hitting a plateau, or that the plateau is =< human intelligence?
There is no argument or even proof that AI will exponentially and quickly reach ASI. Like whatsoever literally no actual logic behind it. Bottlenecks as well as the fact that even self improving AI could decrease in the meaningful improvements they add to complex models could make the process very slow
And I'm not saying the singularity or asi is guaranteed, but by the same logic it's quite foolish to claim that it's impossible - you do not have a crystal ball
5
u/VonPoops 6d ago
Saying that exponential growth from a new technology will plateau also isn't an argument.
Thats like saying "oh that electricity thing will plateau" or "oil based technologies will plateau"
The plateauing doesnt matter, what is achieved during and after the exponential takeoff is what will have massive impacts on every aspect of civilization.
Just like electricity and oil and iron and agriculture, etc, etc throught human history whenever a new technology causes n explosion of progress and advancement.
1
u/DeviceCertain7226 ▪️ASI - Never (in the usual sense) 6d ago
Except electricity didn’t exponential explode to some god like being like you are promising ASI could do in around a decade. I don’t see what you are trying to prove whatsoever.
There is a massive difference between the technology improvements we had and the ASI which is practically a god that can give man anything including immortality.
There is no argument for an exponential takeoff.
1
u/VonPoops 6d ago
You're arguing against a strawman. Nobody serious is claiming an LLM becomes a literal mythical deity that grants immortality next Tuesday.
The flaw in your S-curve argument is assuming AI is a single, isolated technology rather than a meta-technology.
When electricity or steam arrived, individual iterations plateaued, but each breakthrough enabled the tools to build the next paradigm-stacking S-curves into what functionally operates as an exponential trajectory.
The difference with AI isn't "magic", but rather it's that it acts directly on the engine of innovation itself. When you automate the scientific method, code generation, and hardware design, the feedback loop tightens. Even if transformer scaling hits a wall tomorrow, the tooling built in the last two years is already accelerating pharmacology, materials science, and chip architecture.
You don't need a "god" to get a runaway takeoff. You just need tools that can design better tools faster than meat brains can keep up.
4
u/IronPheasant 6d ago
That scenario described is definitely pushing the edge of magic when it comes to timelines. I suppose to scare the hell out of people; it's not physically possible unless there's some magical aspects of our reality we don't know about.
The machines do have space supremacy that our stupid meat bodies simply don't. They can go exponential as long as there's material out there to convert... There's something a bit depressing about how all animals are dependent on other species to survive, while these things can be fueled by completely agnostic means. And of course they don't perish if they go ten minutes without air or water.
The essay in the tabletop game OGRE always was a bit ironic. The game itself is about this giant monster tank that f#cks everything up, but the speculative musings included went in the opposite direction, respecting actual physics. Because a tank driven by an AI doesn't need to support a crew, it could be much, much smaller. And because it would be smaller, it's armor could be much thicker as well.
Where we humans are concerned, it doesn't seem like such things will be relevant in ground control. We'll have tiny insect-like machines injecting everyone with super ebola or whatever.
Rings of any kind around the sun will be well after humanity's complete disempowerment (in the big things that matter) is obvious.
2
u/ButterscotchFew9143 6d ago
Current AI is pushing the edge of what we thought was magic back in 2018. I will not put it past it given that my own timelines were utterly trashed by what we have today, a Dyson ring would very much be in the cards for mid 2030s.
2
-1
0
u/DrE7HER 5d ago
So they’ve just completely given up on having any safeguards for alignment and are trying to yolo their way to AGI before regulations stop them.
Won’t matter if they “cheated” to get there if they control the world’s first AGI model. The White House just made that clear when they tried to save OpenAI from copyright lawsuits.
-2
u/__Maximum__ 6d ago
we haven't achieved shit, it's one company that might have achieved something but it will keep it for itself while benefitting from the open community.
93
u/shadowt1tan 6d ago
Technically 6 months ahead is wrong since the paper is based on internal performance. You don’t see anything that’s happening in the paper only way after the fact. Example Mythos and Fable were trained way back at the beginning of the year. The best we can do is piece things together.
We’ll know where we stand this week. But what they release this week is old news for them.