Latest news with #ChatGPT-5
Tom's Guide
01-07-2025
- Business
- Tom's Guide
Meta's new 'Superintelligence' team could upend the entire AI industry — here's why OpenAI should be worried
Mark Zuckerberg is no longer content playing catch-up in the AI space, especially with Meta's biggest rival, ChatGPT's OpenAI. The proof is in his recent hiring spree that's poached top researchers from OpenAI, Google DeepMind and Claude's Anthropic to form Meta's new "Superintelligence" team. In an internal memo first reported by Wired, Zuckerberg welcomed more than a dozen elite AI scientists into Meta's newly branded Meta Superintelligence Labs (MSL). The move signals a bold shift that Meta is going after artificial general intelligence (AGI), and it's doing it with financial force. Among Meta's new recruits are multiple former OpenAI researchers, including Jiahui Yu, Shuchao Bi, Shengjia Zhao and Hongyu Ren. They're joined by several big names from Google and DeepMind such as Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, and Xiaohua Zhai; all known for their work on high-performing multimodal models and model alignment. Zuckerberg is assembling full research groups and giving them the infrastructure (and budget) to go big. According to multiple reports, some of the hires were lured by seven- to nine-figure pay packages and direct pitches from Zuckerberg himself. Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips. Meta also tapped Nat Friedman, former GitHub CEO, and Daniel Gross, an AI-focused investor, to co-lead the applied AI arm of MSL. The mix of pure research firepower and product-ready AI talent is the balance Meta will need if it wants to scale cutting-edge models into tools consumers actually want to use (like ChatGPT has proven to be). Until now, Meta has largely stayed in the background of the AI arms race, focusing on open-source LLMs like Llama while OpenAI and Anthropic dominated the spotlight with ChatGPT and Claude. But with this high-profile hiring spree, Meta is making one thing clear: it wants to lead AI developmen, not be in the shadows anymore. This escalation has several major implications: Losing talent to a direct competitor hurts, and OpenAI reportedly isn't happy about it. After several team members jumped to Meta, OpenAI's Chief Scientist, Jukan Choi described the exodus as feeling like 'someone broke into our house.' With multiple researchers leaving in a short window, including from OpenAI's Zurich office, it's clear that Meta's offers are lucrative but also strategically timed and targeted. What does this mean for the launch of ChatGPT-5? We don't know exactly, but my guess is that the much-anticipated chatbot could be delayed due to the loss of much of OpenAI's top talent. Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is no longer a distant goal for Meta. Zuckerberg now publicly says Meta is working toward it, and with this new team, it's building the talent to match. Meta is investing in long-context reasoning, multi-modal learning, alignment research and inference optimization — the very same pillars that OpenAI and DeepMind prioritize. Meta has something most companies don't: access to billions of users and massive compute infrastructure. Pairing world-class AI talent with Meta's scale, plus its reach across Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Ray-Bans, could rapidly close the gap. Beyond a shockingly significant hiring spree, Zuckerberg's move is a signal that Meta wants to win the AI race. With top-tier researchers, aggressive investment and an infrastructure built for global rollout, Zuckerberg is making Meta a serious contender in the race for AI dominance. Whether this results in smarter chatbots, better wearable AI or the first real steps toward AGI, one thing is clear: the balance of power in AI is shifting, almost as fast as AI is evolving.
Yahoo
11-02-2025
- Science
- Yahoo
Sam Altman thinks GPT-5 will be smarter than him — but what does that mean?
Sam Altman did a panel discussion at Technische Universität Berlin last week, where he predicted that ChatGPT-5 would be smarter than him — or more accurately, that he wouldn't be smarter than GPT-5. He also did a bit with the audience, asking who considered themselves smarter than GPT-4, and who thinks they will also be smarter than GPT-5. 'I don't think I'm going to be smarter than GPT-5. And I don't feel sad about it because I think it just means that we'll be able to use it to do incredible things. And you know like we want more science to get done. We want more, we want to enable researchers to do things they couldn't do before. This is the history of, this is like the long history of humanity.' The whole thing seemed rather prepared, especially since he forced it into a response to a fairly unrelated question. The host asked about his expectations when partnering with research organizations, and he replied 'Uh… There are many reasons I am excited about AI. …The single thing I'm most excited about is what this is going to do for scientific discovery.' He didn't answer the host's question at any point during his reply, and he also didn't give any details or explanation regarding his comment. What does it mean for GPT-5 to be smarter than Sam Altman? Does it mean GPT-5 will be trained on data covering in-depth knowledge of more subjects than Altman has experience with? That's probably already the case with GPT-4 but people don't describe it as smart because it's so bad at following instructions, retaining context, and revising its responses. So, can we expect GPT-5 to improve in this area? It shouldn't be impossible — my experience with DeepSeek, for example, has been much more positive in this area. If I ask for no more than 100 words, two bullet-point lists, and information taken from a certain link, it actually delivers. Then, when I ask it to add an extra section summarizing an additional webpage I provide — I get what I asked for. I've never been able to achieve this kind of smooth and accurate operation with GPT-4, and I'm not even asking for anything complicated. These are the kind of things I consider when assessing how 'smart' I think an AI model is but it's impossible to know what kind of criteria Altman judges by. He keeps talking about science and research — he even mentioned curing cancer at one point — but it's hard to see how ChatGPT fits into such things. I can see how artificial intelligence as a whole might contribute, but an LLM? The official site for ChatGPT describes it as a brainstorming partner, a meeting summarizer, a code generator, and a way to search the web. Which of these features will meaningfully help a research scientist dealing with questions no human has the answers to yet? If Altman has thoughts or answers on these topics, he isn't sharing them. He just sticks to sweeping statements that only sound impressive until you realize you have no idea what he actually means in practical terms.
