Its all about power and money. It has nothing to do with helping humanity. Our jobs are going to disappear so a few people become wealthy while the rest are left to struggle.
Wealth is going to be irrelevant. Assuming ASI doesn’t become a totally independent and uncontrollable agent, whoever controls it will control the world.
All this really says is that if/when openai makes $100B in profit, microsoft no longer owns that system. It doesn't change the definition of AGI, it sets the terms of their agreement, otherwise they would have to litigate whether any particular system is AGI everytime one was released
Yeah this is very clearly OpenAI amending the very precarious agreement that their partnership with Microsoft would terminate the day they made AGI. Even though o3 isn't officially AGI, it close enough to make both companies sweat. As for what this means for OpenAI, it's yet another pillar that has fallen from the old pretence that OpenAI was in this for the good of humanity. Sam Altman doesn't give a single solitary shit about humanity. As much as it pains me to say it, Elon Musk is 100% right about Sam and OpenAI.
A non-profit can't compete without money. This is openAI's achilles' heel and propaganda is pumped out by those competing with openAI. Stop falling for the bs. If it's ok for everyone else to profit of AI, it's ok for openAI as well. Businesses evolve and change depending on their needs. Apparently AI needs a lot of money to survive and grow.
@@AIsavesDemocracyso its okay to benefit from having a nonprofit and then convert it to a for profit business later when it's profitable? Huh, must be a new business strategy I'm not aware of.
So if I look in the dictionary under AGI it'll say "A system that produces $100bn for Sam Altman.">? That's utterly asinine! I really hope people don't let him get away with this bullshit.
min 6:03... what? why the name of a company is in the definition of AGI? so if open ai collapse for legal reasons, according to that definition, there would never be AGI? what a silly definition.
This was not a definition, just an agreement as to when Microsoft would lose access. People get too hung up on words and too hung up on making everyone look evil.
Meanwhile DeepSeek v3 was created with 1/11 the gpu resources and is beating the leading models. So maybe raw power isn't the best/only path to better models?
Originallyh the "real" generally purpose AI which was defined as passing Turing test. When this standard was passe a few years ago there was virtual academic and industry consensus that it was too simplistic a definition. Today we use AGI to describe "real" general purpose AI. Whatever the new standard is it can' the defined by a single company based on an economic or legal reasons. IIMO a good definition should include the ability to self-improve not just benchmarks which are somewhat arbitrary.
So they went from one vague but AGI related definition to a new vague definition that is one more degree removed from relevance to attributes of AGI itself.
Its pretty interesting to see the disconnect between reality and emotion with these comments. Thanks @TheAIGRID for consistent reporting on AI news and removing emotion
OpenAI rn: "no no no, look, AGI means that we making a loOoOot of money, ok? can we agree on that? PLEEEASE😭. I swear we don't have AGI yet, it's too hard to make it"
AGI is an artifical inteligence that can solve EVERY problem a human can solve, as well as a human or better. And it should be able to solve a whole lot of problems faster better and cheaper than humans or its not really worthwhile. Can such a thing be done, probably, I mean we human are only ~80 billion neurons and
Funny, it seems that Microsoft is more in the position to claim whether AGI has been reached or not which goes against everything we know is really going on. I know most disagree with me on this BUT... this doesn't end well.
with the new definition, we are already at AGI. You can have "theoretically" your AI buy x bitcoin, wait 2 hours, sell it all -> profit. You can theoretically make 100 billion $ in a single transaction. And the AI has already the capability of organizing this single transaction. "can make profits of 100 billion $" isn't the same "has made until now profits of 100 billion $" So, according with this new definition, we have been in AGI since agents were first launched. edit: therefore, the older definition is better AI systems capable of replacing humans in most tasks -> this is AGI, and the latest model of theirs, o3, despite being super expensive, is capable of doing that.
(1:08) "Microsoft would have equity instead of shares"… what does that even mean?? Shares _are_ equity. OpenAI is not publicly traded, but that doesn't mean that no one can own shares; they're just difficult to find buyers for without an exchange. So what are they supposedly getting here, instead of shares? Just blocks of ownership that aren't necessarily a multiple of the portion assigned to each share? Why does it matter?
This statement is separate from my distaste of Sam Altman. It is interesting to see how Humans get closer to something that has never been done before, made before. We have these goalposts, hard terms which define what we think of as a sort of checkpoint. Now, as we slowly approach “AGI” level technology, are we realizing that it’s not exactly constituted the way that was hypothetically imagined, and that redefining what we think of AGI is necessary?
Not sure a definition can be defined by one party who is in a race against other parties. Also, not sure what people think when it comes to why they are trying to go public, money is needed to do just about anything, and the amount required is going to be massive. The power infrastructure alone is enormous. And as to why Elon is moving so fast, um he's got all the money. Any company, including Open AI, would move faster if Elon funded them. Personally, I am not on board with Elon suing them, that seems more like a sticky mouse trap, slow the competition while he moves ahead. And lets be real, Microsoft, Elon, heck all the companies racing to AGI or whatever they call it, is just a power grab, None of them care about people, its profits and power as always. To really do this right you need a global AI company(Group) with people from all over the world, including China, Russia, heck even North Korea (Not A fan of them), but you need something like this to move faster, safer, and the results need to be available for all, not just the elites. Now I know this is not going to happen we humans are too destructive and greedy but you need something like that to really create something as revolutionary as whatever the final definition becomes.
Completely disagree with the definition of “can it make money?” For Artificial Intelligence markers. Of course it is clear that everything about creating & developing this technology is incredibly resource demanding & therefore extremely costly and in need of funding. However, the vision of AGI cannot be lost on massive financial gain as the main goal, that absolutely should not be the aim. Why is it called OpenAI, again?
That definition is bullshit. It's akin to saying that the definition of a Playstation 6 is when when a Playstation console (any model) generates half a trillion dollars or something. That's not how it works
AGI being defined by profit is a beyond poor decision for humanity. PROFIT being the key word. With training and inference time's scaling and compute being thrown more and more, the cost of an AGI system could be so high that they Have AGI currently but, by the profit definition they just don't have to tell anyone. We could, and I believe, most likely do have AGI system on earth somewhere, but it is not in use for general public. Why else is Altman a part of the US D.O.D. Ai division? Because the implications of AGI is more than profit, and can be locked behind Debt to stay out of public sector.
Great breakdown of AI's future! The compute power discussion reminds me of when storage first became key for cloud tech. How will OpenAI's 2029 control goal impact global AI ethics and regulation?
Defining AGI not in terms of it’s intelligence but in terms of how much money it can genererate for its owner- is no definition at all- just wishful partisan thinking. A real definition will have to be aligned with established science and secured for validity, reliability and widely accepted and adopted to have any value at all.
Elon ultimately stands to gain a better foothold being aligned with Trump but Sam stands a better chance to gain a better financial footing being forced to align with big dollar private investors (imho)
A non-profit can't compete without money. This is openAI's achilles' heel and propaganda is pumped out by those competing with openAI. Stop falling for the bs. If it's ok for everyone else to profit of AI, it's ok for openAI as well. Businesses evolve and change depending on their needs. Apparently all AI cimpanies need a lot of money to survive and grow.
New energy is new power & new power is persuasive. Those humans haven't been using elite science. Humans your top-down authority will find its mistake made.
Thank you so much for this amazing video! Could you help me with something unrelated: I have a SafePal wallet with USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). What's the best way to send them to Binance?
Easy way to not gain these lawsuits is stop being a snake. And woah woah woah is probably not what he said in a argument 😂 and why do they get to define AGI? Especially as a dollar amount sounds dumb
PUSHIGH LOTS OF FULL ROBOTIERIGNS CLONINGS TIME ORB LOOPING..... BLA BLA ABOUT MICROSOFT WINDOWS 3.11 AND ULTIMA7 ... PRESENTATION OF FIRST INTERACTION WITH PESEPTION INDIVIDUALITY .
There is no question how Elon got those supercomputers can you redirected from tesla's to go into AI. It was very controversial by the Tesla stock owners he just took it.
Its all about power and money. It has nothing to do with helping humanity. Our jobs are going to disappear so a few people become wealthy while the rest are left to struggle.
How do they become wealthy if no one has a job?
When people hit the point of having nothing to lose, things are really going to get interesting. And not in a good way.
it makes no sense since if no job, no money thus no spending thus companies getting wealthy.
Wealth is going to be irrelevant. Assuming ASI doesn’t become a totally independent and uncontrollable agent, whoever controls it will control the world.
@procrastinatingrn3936 thus capitalim collapsing
All this really says is that if/when openai makes $100B in profit, microsoft no longer owns that system. It doesn't change the definition of AGI, it sets the terms of their agreement, otherwise they would have to litigate whether any particular system is AGI everytime one was released
Yeah this is very clearly OpenAI amending the very precarious agreement that their partnership with Microsoft would terminate the day they made AGI. Even though o3 isn't officially AGI, it close enough to make both companies sweat.
As for what this means for OpenAI, it's yet another pillar that has fallen from the old pretence that OpenAI was in this for the good of humanity. Sam Altman doesn't give a single solitary shit about humanity. As much as it pains me to say it, Elon Musk is 100% right about Sam and OpenAI.
Funny how a Non-Profit company wants to define AGI in terms of Profit potential. This is like a Cemetery be defined by how many lives it saves.
It's not a non profit any more
Huh
Hasn't been non profit for years
A non-profit can't compete without money. This is openAI's achilles' heel and propaganda is pumped out by those competing with openAI. Stop falling for the bs. If it's ok for everyone else to profit of AI, it's ok for openAI as well. Businesses evolve and change depending on their needs. Apparently AI needs a lot of money to survive and grow.
@@AIsavesDemocracyso its okay to benefit from having a nonprofit and then convert it to a for profit business later when it's profitable? Huh, must be a new business strategy I'm not aware of.
So if I look in the dictionary under AGI it'll say "A system that produces $100bn for Sam Altman.">? That's utterly asinine! I really hope people don't let him get away with this bullshit.
Step 1: Hype up a made-up term called AGI
Step 2: Ragebait your audience by claiming you've achieved it and then changing the definition.
THIS
who, the channel or the company ?
The concept of AGI has been around for decades. Since the 1950's
Tell me you don't understand what's happening without telling me you don't understand what's happening
We have a term for something that wishes to keep growing without regards to its surroundings. Cancer.
I think you mean "Elon Musk".
Jesus, $150 billion. I can probably train AGI with $10m in AWS no regs, not a chatbot. Real AGI like in movies.
min 6:03... what? why the name of a company is in the definition of AGI? so if open ai collapse for legal reasons, according to that definition, there would never be AGI? what a silly definition.
Sam 'AGI is defined as give me more money' Altman
This was not a definition, just an agreement as to when Microsoft would lose access. People get too hung up on words and too hung up on making everyone look evil.
Yeah, I only want my news in silent pantomime, but only nice pantomime, not evil pantomime.
Finally someone with a brain
Meanwhile DeepSeek v3 was created with 1/11 the gpu resources and is beating the leading models. So maybe raw power isn't the best/only path to better models?
Better architecture is the way
Originallyh the "real" generally purpose AI which was defined as passing Turing test. When this standard was passe a few years ago there was virtual academic and industry consensus that it was too simplistic a definition. Today we use AGI to describe "real" general purpose AI. Whatever the new standard is it can' the defined by a single company based on an economic or legal reasons. IIMO a good definition should include the ability to self-improve not just benchmarks which are somewhat arbitrary.
AGI is defined as company profit - I think this marks the point where this whole discussion gets so silly we can be sure AGI is far, far away
By these definitions we could easily see ASI before AGI
So they went from one vague but AGI related definition to a new vague definition that is one more degree removed from relevance to attributes of AGI itself.
"My AI dictatorship is better than your AI dictatorship, so move your goalposts out of the way!"
Its pretty interesting to see the disconnect between reality and emotion with these comments.
Thanks @TheAIGRID for consistent reporting on AI news and removing emotion
OpenAI rn: "no no no, look, AGI means that we making a loOoOot of money, ok? can we agree on that? PLEEEASE😭. I swear we don't have AGI yet, it's too hard to make it"
AGI is an artifical inteligence that can solve EVERY problem a human can solve, as well as a human or better. And it should be able to solve a whole lot of problems faster better and cheaper than humans or its not really worthwhile. Can such a thing be done, probably, I mean we human are only ~80 billion neurons and
Funny, it seems that Microsoft is more in the position to claim whether AGI has been reached or not which goes against everything we know is really going on. I know most disagree with me on this BUT... this doesn't end well.
This definition is genius - clear and indisputable.
with the new definition, we are already at AGI.
You can have "theoretically" your AI buy x bitcoin, wait 2 hours, sell it all -> profit.
You can theoretically make 100 billion $ in a single transaction. And the AI has already the capability of organizing this single transaction.
"can make profits of 100 billion $" isn't the same "has made until now profits of 100 billion $"
So, according with this new definition, we have been in AGI since agents were first launched.
edit: therefore, the older definition is better
AI systems capable of replacing humans in most tasks -> this is AGI, and the latest model of theirs, o3, despite being super expensive, is capable of doing that.
(1:08) "Microsoft would have equity instead of shares"… what does that even mean?? Shares _are_ equity. OpenAI is not publicly traded, but that doesn't mean that no one can own shares; they're just difficult to find buyers for without an exchange. So what are they supposedly getting here, instead of shares? Just blocks of ownership that aren't necessarily a multiple of the portion assigned to each share? Why does it matter?
SAI (Self-Aware Intelligence) is a more appropriate name.
This statement is separate from my distaste of Sam Altman.
It is interesting to see how Humans get closer to something that has never been done before, made before.
We have these goalposts, hard terms which define what we think of as a sort of checkpoint.
Now, as we slowly approach “AGI” level technology, are we realizing that it’s not exactly constituted the way that was hypothetically imagined, and that redefining what we think of AGI is necessary?
Not sure a definition can be defined by one party who is in a race against other parties. Also, not sure what people think when it comes to why they are trying to go public, money is needed to do just about anything, and the amount required is going to be massive. The power infrastructure alone is enormous. And as to why Elon is moving so fast, um he's got all the money. Any company, including Open AI, would move faster if Elon funded them. Personally, I am not on board with Elon suing them, that seems more like a sticky mouse trap, slow the competition while he moves ahead. And lets be real, Microsoft, Elon, heck all the companies racing to AGI or whatever they call it, is just a power grab, None of them care about people, its profits and power as always. To really do this right you need a global AI company(Group) with people from all over the world, including China, Russia, heck even North Korea (Not A fan of them), but you need something like this to move faster, safer, and the results need to be available for all, not just the elites. Now I know this is not going to happen we humans are too destructive and greedy but you need something like that to really create something as revolutionary as whatever the final definition becomes.
4:40 TONY STARK BUILT THIS IN A CAVE!! WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS!
When agi's meaning set as a monetary amount, is a scam
That’s not a real definition of AGI. It’s a joke if that’s their benchmark.
This shifting of the definitional goal posts was so predictable...
Completely disagree with the definition of “can it make money?” For Artificial Intelligence markers.
Of course it is clear that everything about creating & developing this technology is incredibly resource demanding & therefore extremely costly and in need of funding.
However, the vision of AGI cannot be lost on massive financial gain as the main goal, that absolutely should not be the aim.
Why is it called OpenAI, again?
They got freaked out by the google release, and can't stand having competition
There's NOTHING 'open' about OpenAI.
Open in the sense of open your purse
Who's surprised that Microsoft's definition of AGI is based on profitability not capability?
We may slip right into an ice age 8:02
That definition is bullshit. It's akin to saying that the definition of a Playstation 6 is when when a Playstation console (any model) generates half a trillion dollars or something. That's not how it works
AGI being defined by profit is a beyond poor decision for humanity. PROFIT being the key word. With training and inference time's scaling and compute being thrown more and more, the cost of an AGI system could be so high that they Have AGI currently but, by the profit definition they just don't have to tell anyone.
We could, and I believe, most likely do have AGI system on earth somewhere, but it is not in use for general public. Why else is Altman a part of the US D.O.D. Ai division? Because the implications of AGI is more than profit, and can be locked behind Debt to stay out of public sector.
Great breakdown of AI's future! The compute power discussion reminds me of when storage first became key for cloud tech. How will OpenAI's 2029 control goal impact global AI ethics and regulation?
That's Open AIs definition, not the real definition. Of AGI.
Will ASI be delayed because of Microsoft?😢
Defining AGI not in terms of it’s intelligence but in terms of how much money it can genererate for its owner- is no definition at all- just wishful partisan thinking. A real definition will have to be aligned with established science and secured for validity, reliability and widely accepted and adopted to have any value at all.
Since OpenAi trained AI on humanity’s resources then Public Ownership of AI Profits is due.
musk vs altman feud is as good as it gets. i hope for more plot twists in 2025, i am sure they will come and big. 📈🇺🇸👀🍿
Elon ultimately stands to gain a better foothold being aligned with Trump but Sam stands a better chance to gain a better financial footing being forced to align with big dollar private investors (imho)
A non-profit can't compete without money. This is openAI's achilles' heel and propaganda is pumped out by those competing with openAI. Stop falling for the bs. If it's ok for everyone else to profit of AI, it's ok for openAI as well. Businesses evolve and change depending on their needs. Apparently all AI cimpanies need a lot of money to survive and grow.
Sam Altman wins the gold… AGI A Golden Investment for Open AI. 🥇
New energy is new power & new power is persuasive. Those humans haven't been using elite science. Humans your top-down authority will find its mistake made.
Wait, what if they trademark “AGI,” oh no
The culture in a microcosm.... start something cool with good intentions... capture with greed.
AGI will help 0.00001% of humanity to become super rich.
Microsoft is not ready to let go, so of course with all the claims of AGI being here, the definition HAD to change. 😂😂😂
Thank you so much for this amazing video! Could you help me with something unrelated: I have a SafePal wallet with USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). What's the best way to send them to Binance?
AGI is the thing which makes you earn $100 billion.
it's not agi until it makes money? no. smdh.
Take anything that Elon says with a pinch of salt.
OpenAI doesn't define what AGI means.. what are you smoking?
GBT 1o feels now like 4o..
It's GBD, not GBT. Come on.
i have told on this channell since probably 6 to 8 month at the start of this channel that Elon musk will surpass everything in march 2025
Moving the goalpost fallacy.
Haha, You just don't mess with Elon, XAI is gonna be nr1 in a few short years.
Easy way to not gain these lawsuits is stop being a snake. And woah woah woah is probably not what he said in a argument 😂 and why do they get to define AGI? Especially as a dollar amount sounds dumb
Damn!
Thats a stupid definition.. when it will be able to make 100 B, money will be obsolete already. or at the very least profit and capitalism will be.
if something is easy to make and very quick to make, its loses all value, just saying.
Only this week next week am thea .sorry . For long time I waiting my witness Pierre.. batta now I can't I mast go my boss
PUSHIGH LOTS OF FULL ROBOTIERIGNS CLONINGS TIME ORB LOOPING..... BLA BLA ABOUT MICROSOFT WINDOWS 3.11 AND ULTIMA7 ... PRESENTATION OF FIRST INTERACTION WITH PESEPTION INDIVIDUALITY .
What?
There is no question how Elon got those supercomputers can you redirected from tesla's to go into AI. It was very controversial by the Tesla stock owners he just took it.
This is misinformation. They are completely different systems. They are not interchangeable nor can one perform the functions of the other.
As has been stated this is misinformation. Nothing was taken from Tesla stock holders.
AGI is a low bar, when I'm looking you higher someone i don't put on my job post, I want an average person for the position
So instead of AGI, we will get "AGI" and it will be lame and cringe.