[nathan11]

It seems reasonable to say that AGI will take a ton of resources. You'll need investors for power, GPUs, researchers, data, and the list goes on. It's a lot easier to get there with viable commercial products than handouts.

I'd be willing to bet that between Sam's approach and the theorized approach of the OpenAI board we're discussing, Sam's approach has a higher chance of success.

[dkjaudyeqooe]

Since AGI isn't a thing, no one knows what it will look like or if it will even exist.

The biggest breakthroughs in science do not come from those with the most money. It's all ideas.

[ben_w]

OTOH humans are a non-artificial GI, and we can use ourselves as an anchor for estimates of what we'd need for an artificial equivalent.

About 1000x the complexity of GPT-3 and much slower would be the best guess right now.

[a_wild_dandan]

Precisely. Breakthroughs are often cleverer than brute force, “throw more compute/tokens at it” approaches. Turning some crucial algorithm from O(n) to O(log(n)) could be an unlock worth trillions of compute time dollars.