On: Mira Murati leaves OpenAI

[ben_w]

Between 1 and 10 thousands of days, so 3 to 27 years.

A range I'd agree with; for me, "pessimism" is the shortest part of that range, but even then you have to be very confident the specific metaphorical horse you're betting on is going to be both victorious in its own right and not, because there's no suitable existing metaphor, secretly an ICBM wearing a patomime costume.

[dimitri-vs → ben_w]

Just in time for them to figure out fusion to power all the GPUs.

But really. o1 has been very whelming, nothing like the step up from 3.5 to 4. Still prefer sonnet3.5 and opus.

[zooq_ai → ben_w]

1 you use 1

2 (or even 3) you use "a couple"

A few is almost always > 3 and one could argue that upper limit 15

So, 10 years to 50 years

[usaar333 → zooq_ai]

few is not > 3. Literally it's just >= 2, though I think >= 3 is the common definition.

15 is too high to be a "few" except in contexts of a few out of tens of thousands of items.

Realistically I interpret this as 3-7 thousands of days (8 to 19 years), which is largely consensus prediction range anyway.

[rsynnott → usaar333]

While it's not really _wrong_ to describe two things as 'a few', as such, it's unusual and people don't really do it in standard English.

That said, I think people are possibly overanalysing this very vague barely-even-a-claim just a little. Realistically, when a tech company makes a vague claim about what'll happen in 10 years, that should be given precisely zero weight; based on historical precedent you might as well ask a magic 8-ball.

[ben_w → zooq_ai]

Personally speaking, above 10 thousand I'd switch to saying "a few tens of thousands".

But the mere fact you say 15 is arguable does indeed broaden the range, just as me saying 1 broadens it in the opposite extent.

[fvv → zooq_ai]

You imply that he knows exactly when which imo is not and could even be next year for what we knows.. Who know every paper yet to be published??