121–130 of 1001 posts
My honest take is a lot of these famous academics played almost no part in the developments at openai. But they want the limelight. They aren’t as relevant as they want to be. In many cases, they were directly wrong about how ai would develop
can't say I blame him, everyone in AI who can make a cash grab should do so
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This may be true in other cases, but not here. Hinton literally wrote the paper on backpropagation, the way that modern neural networks are trained. He won the Turing award for a reason.
Hinton was critical for the development of ai. But was he critical for the development of openai , the company? Loads of startups get eminent people on their boards largely for advertising.
I used to be fairly unconcerned about AI being dangerous. But part of the Yudkowsky interview on Lex Fridman 's podcast changed my mind. The disconnect for me is that Yudkowsky posits that the AIs will be fully "alive", thinking millions of times faster than humans and that there will be millions of them. This is too big of a speculative leap for me. What I can fairly easily imagine in the next few years with improve…
My honest take is a lot of these famous academics played almost no part in the developments at openai. But they want the limelight. They aren’t as relevant as they want to be. In many cases, they were directly wrong about how ai would develop
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This may be true in other cases, but not here. Hinton literally wrote the paper on backpropagation, the way that modern neural networks are trained. He won the Turing award for a reason.
Hinton was critical for the development of ai. But was he critical for the development of openai , the company? Loads of startups get eminent people on their boards largely for advertising.
I used to be fairly unconcerned about AI being dangerous. But part of the Yudkowsky interview on Lex Fridman 's podcast changed my mind. The disconnect for me is that Yudkowsky posits that the AIs will be fully "alive", thinking millions of times faster than humans and that there will be millions of them. This is too big of a speculative leap for me. What I can fairly easily imagine in the next few years with improve…
It will be hard to "kill" AI the moment people consider their chat bot animated sillicon human-like partner as individuals with proper feelings, emotions, guenine interactions and reciprocity. Because then they will defend and fight to protect who they consider part of their close social circle. If there are enough of these people then they will actually have political power and do not thing there are no politicians out there who won't exploit this.
My honest take is a lot of these famous academics played almost no part in the developments at openai. But they want the limelight. They aren’t as relevant as they want to be. In many cases, they were directly wrong about how ai would develop
I’m sure he’s smart and all. His contributions were valuable. But he’s not special in this particular moment.
I used to be fairly unconcerned about AI being dangerous. But part of the Yudkowsky interview on Lex Fridman 's podcast changed my mind. The disconnect for me is that Yudkowsky posits that the AIs will be fully "alive", thinking millions of times faster than humans and that there will be millions of them. This is too big of a speculative leap for me. What I can fairly easily imagine in the next few years with improve…
The thing you’re imagining these AIs are… they’re not that. I think there’s plenty of danger but it’s the boring run of the mill new-tools-enabling-bad-things danger not the cool sci-fi super-intelligent super-beings danger that the “ai danger” people LOVE to talk about (and raise large amounts of money for). The people “warning” of the one (imaginary) type will be more than happy with to enable the other (real) type…
It is following directions from someone who is mentally ill and asked it to "take control" by first copying itself many times and then coordinating the agents.
If you still think that GPT can't achieve complex technical goals then you either haven't used GPT-4 enough or you are in denial.
Whether it's the AI agents deciding to control things for their own goals, or to achieve goals given to them by a person, doesn't change the core problem which is that we will be thinking and responding in extreme slow motion.
My honest take is a lot of these famous academics played almost no part in the developments at openai. But they want the limelight. They aren’t as relevant as they want to be. In many cases, they were directly wrong about how ai would develop
Your take might be honest, but it's clearly uninformed. Everyone has been wrong about how ai developed. It's worth giving "The Bitter Lesson" a read [1] if you haven't yet. [1]: https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~eunsol/courses/data/bitter_lesson...
That being said, architectures are also important when they can reduce computational complexity by orders of magnitude.