OpenAI 和埃隆·马斯克
OpenAI and Elon Musk

原始链接: https://openai.com/blog/openai-elon-musk

以下是关于 OpenAI 的 100 字执行摘要: 一家位于旧金山的人工智能研究实验室,由著名企业家埃隆·马斯克 (Elon Musk)、格雷格·布罗克曼 (Greg Brockman) 和萨姆·奥尔特曼 (Sam Altman) 于 2015 年底创立,旨在通过开发更安全、更智能的人工智能,彻底改变人类生活 智力。 在意识到创建先进人工智能所需的大量资源后,埃隆提议将该组织的财务支持增加十倍,以与谷歌等竞争对手在开发人工智能方面的年度支出相匹配。 虽然最初对采用营利性方式的可行性犹豫不决,但 OpenAI 认为有必要获得大量资金。 后来,分歧导致埃隆结束了参与。 目前,OpenAI 专注于建设性地提供对最先进人工智能的广泛访问,同时继续提供有效的解决方案。 通过与 Digital Green、Albernia 和 Lifespan Corporation 等世界各地的多个实体合作,OpenAI 致力于通过可用的 AGI 技术为全球经济增长和社会福利做出重大贡献。

文字材料表明,Elon Musk 与 OpenAI 的初衷存在分歧,导致了违约方面的法律纠纷。 虽然马斯克认为 OpenAI 应该保持关闭状态以实现收入最大化,但 OpenAI 强调保持开放状态,以便让全世界的科学家都能访问其项目,为教育机构提供免费教授学生与人工智能和机器学习相关的编程语言的机会。 尽管从埃隆·马斯克、菲尔·奈特等人那里获得了数百万美元的捐款,并且雇用了数百名员工,但这篇文章还是引发了人们对开源未来及其对全球教育系统影响的担忧。 一些人认为开源会带来太多危险,而另一些人则认为通过人工智能集中极端权力对人类构成生存威胁。 对这篇文章的一种解释强调,如果集中的极端知识以及极端知识和无知不受监管,可能会产生潜在的毁灭性后果。 总体而言,本文强调有必要继续讨论如何最好地平衡盈利能力与优先考虑教育目的,同时确保人工智能的发展保持安全可靠。
相关文章

原文
Working at the cutting edge of AI is unfortunately expensive. For example,In addition to DeepMind, Google also has Google Brain, Research, and Cloud. And TensorFlow, TPUs, and they own about a third of all research (in fact, they hold their own AI conferences).
I also strongly suspect that compute horsepower will be necessary (and possibly even sufficient) to reach AGI. If historical trends are any indication, progress in AI is primarily driven by systems - compute, data, infrastructure. The core algorithms we use today have remained largely unchanged from the ~90s. Not only that, but any algorithmic advances published in a paper somewhere can be almost immediately re-implemented and incorporated. Conversely, algorithmic advances alone are inert without the scale to also make them scary.
It seems to me that OpenAI today is burning cash and that the funding model cannot reach the scale to seriously compete with Google (an 800B company). If you can't seriously compete but continue to do research in open, you might in fact be making things worse and helping them out “for free”, because any advances are fairly easy for them to copy and immediately incorporate, at scale.
A for-profit pivot might create a more sustainable revenue stream over time and would, with the current team, likely bring in a lot of investment. However, building out a product from scratch would steal focus from AI research, it would take a long time and it's unclear if a company could “catch up” to Google scale, and the investors might exert too much pressure in the wrong directions.The most promising option I can think of, as I mentioned earlier, would be for OpenAI to attach to Tesla as its cash cow. I believe attachments to other large suspects (e.g. Apple? Amazon?) would fail due to an incompatible company DNA. Using a rocket analogy, Tesla already built the “first stage” of the rocket with the whole supply chain of Model 3 and its onboard computer and a persistent internet connection. The “second stage” would be a full self driving solution based on large-scale neural network training, which OpenAI expertise could significantly help accelerate. With a functioning full self-driving solution in ~2-3 years we could sell a lot of cars/trucks. If we do this really well, the transportation industry is large enough that we could increase Tesla's market cap to high O(~100K), and use that revenue to fund the AI work at the appropriate scale.
I cannot see anything else that has the potential to reach sustainable Google-scale capital within a decade.
联系我们 contact @ memedata.com