每周跟踪AI热点新闻动向和震撼发展 想要探索生成式人工智能的前沿进展吗？订阅我们的简报，深入解析最新的技术突破、实际应用案例和未来的趋势。与全球数同行一同，从行业内部的深度分析和实用指南中受益。不要错过这个机会，成为AI领域的领跑者。点击订阅，与未来同行！ 订阅：https://rengongzhineng.io/
在这个时代，OpenAI和马斯克大佬之间的故事可谓是充满了曲折。OpenAI，一个立志于让人工智能（AGI）造福全人类的团队，和马斯克大佬，一个对未来充满憧憬的科技先驱，原本同舟共济，但命运的浪潮似乎总爱开玩笑。
从一开始，OpenAI就怀揣着宏大的梦想，想要构建一个既安全又有益的AGI，而且还要让这种科技的红利广泛分布。然而，随着时间的推移，他们发现要实现这个目标，所需的资源远超最初预期。在这种情况下，马斯克大佬大手一挥，提议最初为OpenAI承诺10亿美元资金。看着来自马斯克的不到4500万美元和其他捐赠者的9000多万美元，他们意识到，这场战斗没有那么简单。
时间回到2015年底，Greg和Sam计划筹集1亿美元，但马斯克大佬却认为这样的数字太过渺小，于是提出了一个大胆的想法——10亿美元的资金承诺，以避免让OpenAI显得无望。他们面对的，不仅仅是资金的问题，还有达到AGI所需的巨量计算资源。
随着讨论深入，双方认识到，要成功完成使命，可能需要创建一个盈利实体来获取更多资源。然而，当讨论转向盈利结构时，马斯克大佬的想法和OpenAI的初衷出现了分歧。他想要与特斯拉合并或拥有完全控制权，这让OpenAI感到难以接受。在一系列的交锋之后，马斯克大佬最终选择离开，他认为没有他，OpenAI的成功概率为零。离别时，他虽然表达了对OpenAI找到自己道路的支持，但随后的发展却是一场诉讼战。
OpenAI并未因此停步，他们致力于构建广泛可用的有益工具，让技术在日常生活中发挥更大的力量。从阿尔巴尼亚加速加入欧盟的进程，到帮助肯尼亚和印度的农民提高收入，再到使用GPT-4简化手术同意书，OpenAI的努力无处不在。
马斯克大佬虽然离开，但他的影响仍旧深远。他理解OpenAI的使命，并在某种程度上支持他们的选择。但随着OpenAI朝着使命取得实质性进展，不带他的旅程似乎引发了他的不满，从而走向了诉讼。
尽管如此，OpenAI的脚步未曾停歇，他们依旧致力于推进使命，梦想着有一天，他们的工具能够赋能每一个个体，开创更美好的未来。在这场既有理想又充满现实挑战的征程中，OpenAI和马斯克大佬的故事，成为了科技史上一段难忘的佳话。
信件来往：
[1]
From:
Elon Musk <>
To:
Greg Brockman <>
CC:
Sam Altman <>
Date: Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 7:48 PM
Subject: follow up from call
Blog sounds good, assuming adjustments for neutrality vs being YC-centric.
I'd favor positioning the blog to appeal a bit more to the general public -- there is a lot of value to having the public root for us to succeed -- and then having a longer, more detailed and inside-baseball version for recruiting, with a link to it at the end of the general public version.
We need to go with a much bigger number than $100M to avoid sounding hopeless relative to what Google or Facebook are spending. I think we should say that we are starting with a $1B funding commitment. This is real. I will cover whatever anyone else doesn't provide.
Template seems fine, apart from shifting to a vesting cash bonus as default, which can optionally be turned into YC or potentially SpaceX (need to understand how much this will be) stock.
[2]
From:
Elon Musk <>
To:
Ilya Sutskever <>, Greg Brockman <>
Date: Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 3:52 AM
Subject: Fwd: Top AI institutions today
is exactly right. We may wish it otherwise, but, in my and ’s opinion, Tesla is the only path that could even hope to hold a candle to Google. Even then, the probability of being a counterweight to Google is small. It just isn't zero.
Begin forwarded message:
From:
<>
To:
Elon Musk <>
Date: January 31, 2018 at 11:54:30 PM PST
Subject: Re: Top AI institutions today
Working at the cutting edge of AI is unfortunately expensive. For example,In addition to DeepMind, Google also has Google Brain, Research, and Cloud. And TensorFlow, TPUs, and they own about a third of all research (in fact, they hold their own AI conferences).
I also strongly suspect that compute horsepower will be necessary (and possibly even sufficient) to reach AGI. If historical trends are any indication, progress in AI is primarily driven by systems - compute, data, infrastructure. The core algorithms we use today have remained largely unchanged from the ~90s. Not only that, but any algorithmic advances published in a paper somewhere can be almost immediately re-implemented and incorporated. Conversely, algorithmic advances alone are inert without the scale to also make them scary.
It seems to me that OpenAI today is burning cash and that the funding model cannot reach the scale to seriously compete with Google (an 800B company). If you can't seriously compete but continue to do research in open, you might in fact be making things worse and helping them out “for free”, because any advances are fairly easy for them to copy and immediately incorporate, at scale.
A for-profit pivot might create a more sustainable revenue stream over time and would, with the current team, likely bring in a lot of investment. However, building out a product from scratch would steal focus from AI research, it would take a long time and it's unclear if a company could “catch up” to Google scale, and the investors might exert too much pressure in the wrong directions.The most promising option I can think of, as I mentioned earlier, would be for OpenAI to attach to Tesla as its cash cow. I believe attachments to other large suspects (e.g. Apple? Amazon?) would fail due to an incompatible company DNA. Using a rocket analogy, Tesla already built the “first stage” of the rocket with the whole supply chain of Model 3 and its onboard computer and a persistent internet connection. The “second stage” would be a full self driving solution based on large-scale neural network training, which OpenAI expertise could significantly help accelerate. With a functioning full self-driving solution in ~2-3 years we could sell a lot of cars/trucks. If we do this really well, the transportation industry is large enough that we could increase Tesla's market cap to high O(~100K), and use that revenue to fund the AI work at the appropriate scale.
I cannot see anything else that has the potential to reach sustainable Google-scale capital within a decade.
[3]
From:
Elon Musk <>
To:
Ilya Sutskever <>, Greg Brockman <>
CC:
Sam Altman <>, <>
Date: Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 12:07 PM
Subject: I feel I should reiterate
My probability assessment of OpenAI being relevant to DeepMind/Google without a dramatic change in execution and resources is 0%. Not 1%. I wish it were otherwise.
Even raising several hundred million won't be enough. This needs billions per year immediately or forget it.
Unfortunately, humanity's future is in the hands of .
And they are doing a lot more than this.
I really hope I'm wrong.
Elon
[4]
Fwd: congrats on the falcon 93 messages
From:
Elon Musk <>
To:
Sam Altman <>, Ilya Sutskever <>, Greg Brockman <>
Date: Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 8:18 AM
Subject: Fwd: congrats on the falcon 9
Begin forwarded message:
From:
<>
To:
Elon Musk <>
Date: January 2, 2016 at 10:12:32 AM CST
Subject: congrats on the falcon 9
Hi Elon
Happy new year to you, !
Congratulations on landing the Falcon 9, what an amazing achievement. Time to build out the fleet now!
I've seen you (and Sam and other OpenAI people) doing a lot of interviews recently extolling the virtues of open sourcing AI, but I presume you realise that this is not some sort of panacea that will somehow magically solve the safety problem? There are many good arguments as to why the approach you are taking is actually very dangerous and in fact may increase the risk to the world. Some of the more obvious points are well articulated in this blog post, that I'm sure you've seen, but there are also other important considerations:
http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/12/17/should-ai-be-open/
I’d be interested to hear your counter-arguments to these points.
Best
From:
Ilya Sutskever <>
To:
Elon Musk <>, Sam Altman <>, Greg Brockman <>
Date: Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 9:06 AM
Subject: Fwd: congrats on the falcon 9
The article is concerned with a hard takeoff scenario: if a hard takeoff occurs, and a safe AI is harder to build than an unsafe one, then by opensorucing everything, we make it easy for someone unscrupulous with access to overwhelming amount of hardware to build an unsafe AI, which will experience a hard takeoff.
As we get closer to building AI, it will make sense to start being less open. The Open in openAI means that everyone should benefit from the fruits of AI after its built, but it's totally OK to not share the science (even though sharing everything is definitely the right strategy in the short and possibly medium term for recruitment purposes).
From:
Elon Musk <>
To:
Ilya Sutskever <>
Date: Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 9:11 AM
Subject: Fwd: congrats on the falcon 9
Yup
原文：OpenAI and Elon Musk
