The heading of this question is misleading, but I assume I should answer the question and ignore the heading
P(Global catastrophic risk) What is the probability that the human race will make it to 2100 without any catastrophe that wipes out more than 90% of humanity?
You don’t really need the producers to be “idle”, you just have to ensure that if something important shows up, they are ready to work on that. Instead of having idle producers, you can just have them work on lower priority tasks. Has this also been modelled in queueing theory?
I have a question that tricks GPT-4, but if I post it I’m afraid it’s going to end up in the training data for GPT-5. I might post it once there is a GPT-n that solves it.
You can use ChatGPT 3.5 for free with chat history turned off. This way your chats should not be used as training data.
The corporate structure of OpenAI was set up as an answer to concerns (about AGI and control over AGIs) which were raised by rationalists. But I don’t think rationalists believed that this structure was a sufficient solution to the problem, anymore than non-rationalists believed it. The rationalists that I have been speaking to were generally mostly sceptical about OpenAI.
They were not loyal to the board, but it is not clear if they were loyal to The Charter since they were not given any concrete evidence of a conflict between Sam and the Charter.
Ok, looks like he was invited in to OpenAIs office for some reason at least https://twitter.com/sama/status/1726345564059832609
If someone accidentally uses “he” when they meant “she” or vice versa and when talking about a person who’s gender they know, it is likely because the speaker’s first language does not distinguish between he and she. This could be Finnish, Estonian, Hungarian and some Turkic languages and probably also other languages. I haven’t actually use it, but noticed it with a Finnish speaker.