Specific ambition and non-specific ambition look pretty similar on the surface, and it's easy to emulate the wrong one.
Specific ambition, combined with relentless execution, is extremely powerful.
Non-specific ambition leads to a lot of energy and random movement but no forward progress.
Specific ambition means having a very clear vision for where you plan to go, and perfect clarity about the next few steps.
Reading about history always seems to indicate that the cold reality of important work is about 1% glamorous plans and 99% unglamorous and very focused execution. (There are some occasional exceptions for scientists and a few other categories.)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
here is o1, a series of our most capable and aligned models yet:
o1 is still flawed, still limited, and it still seems more impressive on first use than it does after you spend more time with it. openai.com/index/learning…
but also, it is the beginning of a new paradigm: AI that can do general-purpose complex reasoning.
o1-preview and o1-mini are available today (ramping over some number of hours) in ChatGPT for plus and team users and our API for tier 5 users.
screenshot of eval results in the tweet above and more in the blog post, but worth especially noting:
a fine-tuned version of o1 scored at the 49th percentile in the IOI under competition conditions! and got gold with 10k submissions per problem.
it is still flawed, still limited, and it still seems more impressive on first use than it does after you spend more time with it.
it is more creative than previous models, it hallucinates significantly less, and it is less biased. it can pass a bar exam and score a 5 on several AP exams. there is a version with a 32k token context.
we are previewing visual input for GPT-4; we will need some time to mitigate the safety challenges.
TL;DR: at this point, to be certain of avoiding catastrophe, the FDIC needs to temporarily guarantee all deposits. other solutions might work, but this is the best one.
first, this really is just a liquidity issue. depositors at SVB are going to get all or most of their money back, and will have a significant fraction of it this week.
however, depositors should get *all* of their money back, and fast. equityholders in SVB and lenders should be wiped out.
but we really, really don't want depositors to start doubting their banks. the world has changed since 2008; the speed of a cascade could be very fast.
dropping standardized tests while maintaining legacy admissions policies and claiming it's about advancing equality of opportunity is not a serious position.
i'd love to see data, but as imperfect as tests are, i bet they do more for equality of opportunity than most of the rest of the application process, and it's very possible to look at scores in context.
this is the echochamber gone very wrong.
how about more tests and drop the personal-essay-written-by-expensive-consultants?
the adaptation to a world deeply integrated with AI tools is probably going to happen pretty quickly; the benefits (and fun!) have too much upside.
these tools will help us be more productive (can't wait to spend less time doing email!), healthier (AI medical advisors for people who can’t afford care), smarter (students using ChatGPT to learn), and more entertained (AI memes lolol).
a transition like this is mostly good, and can happen somewhat fast—the transition from the pre-smartphone world to post-smartphone world is a recent example.
but it’ll be tempting to go super quickly, which is frightening—society needs time to adapt to something so big.