Recent submissions

Comment · 1 year ago
fyi, I don't have enough karma to flag, but all comments from the user you're replying to seem to be direct chatGPT outputs, with consistent summary-detail-concluding question structure, superficial attempts to sound profound, and plenty of em dashes.
Comment · 1 year ago
Comment · 1 year ago
Comment · 1 year ago
In my experience, ChatGPT4 has been able to do this very accurately for >1 year now. Gemini also seems to perform well.
Comment · 1 year ago
> But referring to all these "4D dynamical worlds" sounds overhyped / scammy - everyone else calls 3D space simulated through time a 3D world.

In the research community, "4D" is a commonly used term to differentiate from work on static 3D objects and environments, especially in recent years since the advent of NeRF.

The term "dynamic" has long been used similarly, but sometimes connotes a narrower scope. For example, reconstruction of cloth dynamics from an RGBD sensor, human body motion from a multi-view camera rig, or a scene from video, but assuming that the scene can be decomposed into rigid objects with their individual dynamics and an otherwise static environment. An even narrower related term in this space would be "articulated", such as reconstruction of humans, animals, or objects with moving parts. However, the representations used in prior works typically did not generalize outside their target domains.

So, "4D" has become more common recently to reflect the development of more general representations that can be used to model dynamic objects and environments.

If you'd like to find related work, I'd recommend searching in conjunction with a conference name to start, e.g. "4D CVPR" or "4D NeurIPS", and then digging into webpages of specific researchers or lab groups. Here are a couple interesting related works I found:

https://shape-of-motion.github.io/ https://generative-dynamics.github.io/ https://stereo4d.github.io/ https://make-a-video3d.github.io/

All that considered, "4D dynamical worlds" does feel like buzzword salad, even if the intended audience is the research community, for two main reasons. First, it's as if some authors with a background in physics simulation wanted to reference "dynamical systems", but none of the prior work in 4D reconstruction/generation uses "dynamical", they use "dynamic". Second, as described above, the whole point of "4D" is that it's more general than "dynamic", using both is redundant. So, "4D worlds" would be more appropriate IMO.

Comment · 2 years ago
Are there other, more up-to-date, resources you would recommend?
Comment · 3 years ago
Comment · 3 years ago
Comment · 3 years ago
Like I said, I agree that Sam Altman, relatively speaking, is better known than Ilya Sutskever to the general public. Although, as other users have replied, this isn't necessarily the same as being a household name.

In any case, I feel like we largely agree, so I'm confused as to why your reply focused solely on this small detail, in a rather condescending manner, while missing my larger point about retaining and attracting AI talent.

Comment · 3 years ago
Agreed, both were critical for their success, the underlying LLM technology, and the vision and leadership to package the tech into ChatGPT.

However, my original comment on this thread was simply to point out that Ilya is not "unknown-to-anyone", but a world renowned AI researcher and a core part of OpenAI's team and their success. Your reply implied that Ilya "has very little to do with OpenAI’s success", which I thought undersells his importance.

Comment · 3 years ago
Typically I would agree, but in the case of OpenAI, they were themselves blindsided when their free conversational LLM demo, ChatGPT, went viral less than a year ago now.

It is a rare counter case, where a tech-focused research demo, without any clear "product-market fit, suppliers, or customers" became a success almost overnight, to the surprise of it's own creators.

The early days were people playing around with ChatGPT just to see what it could do. All the market fit, fine tuning, and negotiation of deals came later.

Of course, OpenAI capitalized on that initial success very skillfully, but Ilya was the critical world renowned AI researcher who had a lot to do with enabling OpenAI's initial success.

Comment · 3 years ago
I think you're right that this move by Ilya is to refocus on the non-profit mission, so less urgency to commercialize and sell products, and instead more focus on core research.

Based on Ilya's statements, it doesn't seem like safety was the main motivation in the decision, so maybe there's a hope that they'll be more open, but it doesn't seem to indicate either way, so possible that they'll stay tight lipped regardless.

Comment · 3 years ago
Comment · 3 years ago
I see, thanks for clarifying. I agree that Ilya is relatively lesser known publicly, but in the grander scheme of things I don't think Altman is really that well known either.

I mean, anecdotally, most non-tech friends and family I know probably have heard of ChatGPT, but they don't know any of the founders or leadership team at OpenAI.

On the other hand, since I work in the field, all of my AI research friends/colleagues would know Ilya's work, and probably think of Sam more as a business guy.

In that sense, as far as attracting and maintaining AI researcher talent, I think it's arguable that people would prefer Ilya to Sam.

Comment · 3 years ago
I don't think Ilya is jealous, I think he just fundamentally is more devoted to the original non-profit mission, and the AI research.

Sam is a VC guy who has been going on a world tour to not just get in the spotlight, but to actually accumulate power, influence, and more capital investment.

At some point, this means Ilya no longer trusts that Sam is actually devoted to the original mission to benefit all of humanity. So, I think it's a little more complicated than just being "jealous".

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton