Gary Marcus

Rank 22 of 47
|
Score 74
9/11/2024, 7:20:20 PM
X
In reply to:
Ed Zitron
@edzitron
·
166d
@GaryMarcus
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
166d
@edzitron Are you sure that includes a massive discount? Is that documented? I wondered whether it was billed at market rates with the investment being quoted at those rates.
Ed Zitron
@edzitron
·
166d
Here's a thing that should worry you: OpenAI's currently losing $5bn a year - but that's with a massive discount on server costs from Microsoft. What happens if OpenAI has to start making money? What happens if they lose their preferred rate from Microsoft?
Ed Zitron
@edzitron
·
167d
what really pisses me off about generative AI is that we're seeing the exact same thing happening as with crypto/the metaverse, where too many people in the media say "okay, well, it's bad today but in the future it'll be amazing." It never gets better! Not once!

The statement 'Ah interesting! Source?' is a request for verification or additional information regarding a claim made in a public discussion about the financial relationship between Microsoft and OpenAI. The conversation involves significant public interest topics such as corporate financial practices, the sustainability of AI technologies, and the transparency of business operations. The tone is inquisitive and seeks to promote clarity and understanding.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement strives to do no harm and is neutral in tone, simply asking for a source to verify the information. This aligns well with the principle of doing no harm. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    By asking for a source, the statement promotes understanding and transparency, which aligns with the principle of using words to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion. [+1]
  3. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in constructive dialogue by seeking verification rather than making assumptions or personal attacks, aligning with the principle of engaging in constructive criticism and dialogue. [+1]