Thank you dang. I’ll take the downvotes/flags but it really would be beneficial if HN “understood” that we are better off removing sensationalism rather than playing directly into the bait of it.
Full interview:
https://youtu.be/H7DgMFqrON0
The particular mention is at ~3:32.
edit: the link was initially pointing to a (admittedly not very high quality) techcrunch article. The part mentioned there where GH closes his speech by "I'm particularly proud of the fact that one of my students fired Sam Altman" is at ~3:32 of the video in the current link.
Geoffrey Hinton had an excellent series on neural networks from 2011 for Coursera available here https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLoRl3Ht4JOcdU872GhiYWf6... detailing the fundamentals of machine learning. The series was later wholesale replaced by another led by Andrew Ng of Google. I really adored Geoffrey’s lectures and recommend it to anyone looking to get into the space. It ends with him hinting at the idea of attention networks, but sadly I can’t find any later lectures from him on the topic.
I took that course. His language was dense and was quite complex. It was like listening to someone reading out the Goodfellow's Deep Learning book, except that the language was even more dense. I guess it showed Hinton's amazing mental capacity
I totally agree, as I took that course during University of Toronto undergrad (either 2013 or 2014) when [Sir?] Geoffrey Hinton decided to flip (this is an official term) the course to have it that we watched the Coursera video course of what is linked above, and ask questions in class. It was extremely hard to understand the course material, and I dropped out a few weeks into it after the first unit test. It is probably one of the most awful introductions to neural networks that exists, and that's why the "go-to" ML courses are ones by Andrew Ng, Jeremy Howard's fast.ai, and others. But to be fair, the class was very math-heavy in terms of the actual underlying implementation of neural networks, and I seemed to be an exception in that class of about 50 or so students (many seemed from the master's program) who simply could grasp much of the math behind it (I'm sure anyone who understand the course material could implement neural nets at a CUDA level).
mentioning sama, so petty.
This is what clickbait-by-design looks like. The headline is, minor omission aside that Ilya was Hinton’s student, the entire article.
I am sure folks here can find a better use of their time than to dogpile on sama. We have enough of those threads to go around that this one is incredibly below the belt.
So please help keep HN relatively drama/snide free, and flag this article.
Special thanks to TechCrunch for keeping the quality of their articles high. We couldn’t have done it without you.
What does it matter that Ilya was Geoffrey's student?
I will not flag this. Indeed, quite the opposite - I upvoted.
Is it the most scholarly article ever written? Of course not, but that's no reason to flag. I think Sam A. is wholly deserving of all the negative press of late. Articles like this keep the rational debate alive. We're proof of that, right now.
I think it's unfair to call this drama/snide - it seems pretty justified for academics like Geoffrey Hinton to be upset that a non-profit research lab called OpenAI has been converted to a for-profit company + billions of stock for sama. Seems like a pretty good use of time to talked about how messed up that is.
To give credit where it is due, it is Sam, not Ilya, that brought ChatGPT and its API to the people.
I am curious to know if Sam has ever contributed to a technical paper, like, I am honestly curious if people like him or Musk ever contribute, formally, to the technical side of things besides publications more on the speculative/descriptive/philosophical side of things.
I doubt it, but I do believe that without Sam, OpenAI would be lost fighting "theoretical safety demons" with Ilya, as opposed to being an instrument of accelerating technological change.