(To avoid singling out any one existing company, we’re going to describe a fictional artificial general intelligence company, which we’ll call OpenBrain. We imagine the others to be 3–9 months behind OpenBrain.)
I am confused/curious. Doesn’t “OpenBrain” closely resemble “OpenAI”, thereby singling out an existing company? Similarly, “DeepCent” in this context closely resembles “DeepSeek”.
Maybe this is humor, or there are legal reasons for not using real names?
To avoid singling out existing companies, it might be better to name the company “Wonderful AI”, “Agentic AI”, “AI company №352”, etc. On the other side, using real names could be better for the goal of making the prediction more concrete and serious (the use of “OpenBrain” may evoke feelings of an alternative reality).
Pretty sure “DeepCent” is a blend of DeepSeek & Tencent—they have a footnote: “We consider DeepSeek, Tencent, Alibaba, and others to have strong AGI projects in China. To avoid singling out a specific one, our scenario will follow a fictional “DeepCent.””. And I think the “brain” in OpenBrain is supposed to be reminiscent of the “mind” in DeepMind.
I understand it much better now, thanks! (I did not know about Tencent, and I foolishly had not read that footnote carefully enough.)
Although I don’t fully understand why drawing attention to two companies is viewed acceptable when drawing attention to only one company is not. As said, other companies also have a notable chance of becoming the leader.
Probably drawing attention to one particular company can be seen as a targeted attack or advertisement, and one is much less likely to advertise for/attack two companies at the same time. But one could be “playing for” other company (say, X AI or Anthropic) and thereby be attacking other leading companies?
This wasn’t intended to be humor. In the scenario, we write:
(To avoid singling out any one existing company, we’re going to describe a fictional artificial general intelligence company, which we’ll call OpenBrain. We imagine the others to be 3–9 months behind OpenBrain.)
I think that OpenAI, GDM, and Anthropic are in the lead and are the most likely to be ahead, with similar probability.
I am confused/curious. Doesn’t “OpenBrain” closely resemble “OpenAI”, thereby singling out an existing company? Similarly, “DeepCent” in this context closely resembles “DeepSeek”.
Maybe this is humor, or there are legal reasons for not using real names?
To avoid singling out existing companies, it might be better to name the company “Wonderful AI”, “Agentic AI”, “AI company №352”, etc. On the other side, using real names could be better for the goal of making the prediction more concrete and serious (the use of “OpenBrain” may evoke feelings of an alternative reality).
Pretty sure “DeepCent” is a blend of DeepSeek & Tencent—they have a footnote: “We consider DeepSeek, Tencent, Alibaba, and others to have strong AGI projects in China. To avoid singling out a specific one, our scenario will follow a fictional “DeepCent.””. And I think the “brain” in OpenBrain is supposed to be reminiscent of the “mind” in DeepMind.
ETA: Scott Alexander tweets with more backstory on how they settled on “OpenBrain”: “You wouldn’t believe how much work went into that stupid name…”
I understand it much better now, thanks! (I did not know about Tencent, and I foolishly had not read that footnote carefully enough.)
Although I don’t fully understand why drawing attention to two companies is viewed acceptable when drawing attention to only one company is not. As said, other companies also have a notable chance of becoming the leader.
Probably drawing attention to one particular company can be seen as a targeted attack or advertisement, and one is much less likely to advertise for/attack two companies at the same time. But one could be “playing for” other company (say, X AI or Anthropic) and thereby be attacking other leading companies?
This wasn’t intended to be humor. In the scenario, we write:
I think that OpenAI, GDM, and Anthropic are in the lead and are the most likely to be ahead, with similar probability.
I think it’s indeed humor & indeed singling out a company.