Jack has a lot of really bad takes and frequently makes lots of mistakes. Honestly, I don't know why people take him seriously.

I mean you can go read his blog post that's pinned where he argues that there's no new ideas and it is all data. He makes the argument that architecture doesn't matter, which is just so demonstrably false that it is laughable. He's a scale maximalist.

I also expect an AI researcher from a top university to not make such wild mistakes

  > 3. RLHF: first proposed (to my knowledge) in the InstructGPT paper from OpenAI in 2022

I mean if you go read the instruct paper on page 2 you'll see

  | Specifically, we use reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF; Christiano et al., 2017; Stiennon et al., 2020) to fine-tune GPT-3 to follow a broad class of written instructions (see Figure 2).

Where in Christiano you'll find

  || Our algorithm follows the same basic approach as Akrour et al. (2012) and Akrour et al. (2014)

I mean this is just obviously wrong. It is so obviously wrong it should make the person saying it second guess themselves (which is categorically the same error you're pointing out).

I'm sure we can trace the idea back to the 80's if not earlier. This is the kind of take I'd expect a non-researcher to have, but not someone with two dozen NLP papers. The Instruct-GPT paper was just the first time someone integrated RLHF into a LLM (but not a LM).

Maybe a better article is the one he wrote on Super Intelligence From First Principles. As usual, when someone says "First Principles" you bet they're not gonna start from First Principles... I guess this makes sense in CS since we index from 0

[0] https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.02155

[Christiano et al] https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03741

[Stiennon eta al] https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.01325

[Akrour et al (2012)] https://arxiv.org/abs/1208.0984