Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A New Mode of Cancer Treatment

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 215 posts

Re: A New Mode of Cancer Treatment

#161

Post by godelski »

algoatecorn wrote: post #136
emmanueloga_ wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Self consciousness. Human-level of reasoning. Feelings, etc. We are NOT close to AGI. * Fancy Markov chain (LLM) is not AGI. * Stable diffusion style of image generation is NOT AGI. * Fancy computer vision is NOT AGI. Honestly, I don't think we are any closer to AGI. What we are seeing is the peak of "fancy tricks" for computer generated artifacts.

Aren't we all just performing probablistic decision paths in our own minds? Would "feelings" improve decision accuracy in artificial systems?

Mammal brains don't every turn off. They are always learning. If you've ever gone to sleep (if you haven't, let me know), or observed any animal sleeping, you'll notice that this machine is able to create highly realistic simulations of its environment (aka: dream). Both people and dogs wake up from nightmares and for a bit have trouble distinguishing reality. My cat does this with a tiny 30g brain. (Even a hamster sleeps and dreams) She even simulates her environment while awake and you can see complex decision processing. How she can predict the path that objects will take in the air, be able to predict the location of a moving object even as it goes behind a wall. She is even able to update this belief with other clues like sound or using a mirror. She quickly is able to update her behavior if I try to trick her. She can do this invariant to colors, rotation, novel lighting dynamics, novel environments, and under many more conditions. When I move to a new place I can drop her in the litterbox after I first take her out of her cage, she'll run to find somewhere to hide, and then trivially navigate back to it when she needs to use it, without any prodding. She may be stubborn and not want to perform some tricks sometimes, but that doesn't mean she hasn't learned them.

These are far more complex tasks than many give credit for, and there are a lot more that she can do (even that dumb fucking hamster). Just because she can't speak doesn't make her intelligent, the same way that just because GPT does doesn't make it. What's key here is the generalization part. Yeah, there are failures, but clearly my cat's intelligence is highly generalized. You don't throw her off by minor perturbations of the environment. If I change the bowl that her food gets poured into, she still comes running, and can differentiate this from a bowl of cereal. She's robust to orientation of an object or even herself. We don't see remotely this robustness in ANY AI systems. While they can do impressive things, we still haven't beaten that fucking hamster.

Re: A New Mode of Cancer Treatment

#162

Post by godelski »

reader5000 wrote: post #130
cubefox wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ChatGPT (instruction tuned autoregressive language models) indeed already seems quite general (it's good at conversation Turing tests without faking it like ELIZA), even if the absolute intelligence is limited. Level of generality and intelligence is not the same. Something could be quite narrow but very intelligent (AlphaGo) or quite general but dumb overall (small kid, insect). Okay, ChatGPT is only text-to-text, b…

> I think one missing step is to fuse training and inference regime into one, just as in animals It's not clear it is one. Sleep is training (replay from hippocampus). Wake is inference.

> Wake is inference.

I'm not sure how anyone could be this naive. Mammal brains don't have this train mode inference mode. They are both running at all times. If what you said was true, if I taught you something today you wouldn't be able to perform that action till tomorrow. Hell, schools would be an insane concept if this were true. Try to think a bit more before confidently stating an answer.

Re: A New Mode of Cancer Treatment

#163

Post by flobosg »

Metacelsus wrote: post #121

Would the Ames test even make sense, given that bacteria don't have PCNA?

The compound might have additional mutagenic mechanisms apart from the described PCNA interaction: it could cause direct chemical modifications to DNA, act as an intercalating agent that disrupts DNA replication and/or transcription, etc.

Re: A New Mode of Cancer Treatment

#164

Post by siva7 »

Am i the only one wondering what this finding really means in practice when we read every other weak a similiar science article that claims to be a breakthrough in cancer treatment?

Re: A New Mode of Cancer Treatment

#165

Post by lolive »

A sentence near the end of the article summarizes why cancer is such a nasty disease to deal with:

"I hope that human cancers will prove vulnerable to this new mode of attack in the clinic, and that *they are not able to mutate around it with new forms of caPCNA too quickly*, either."

Re: A New Mode of Cancer Treatment

#166

Post by jimmySixDOF »

shrimpx wrote: post #153
AbrahamParangi wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly is your definition of a AGI? Because we’re already passing the Turing test, and so I have to wonder if this isn’t just moving the goalposts.

How do you pass the Turing test with “As an AI, I don’t have opinions and I don’t know shit after September 2021” The idea that GPT4 passed the Turing test is preposterous unless the test is a much more restricted version of what I think it is — in which case it would be meaningless.

GPT4 can pass the Turing Test! The Turing test line has been crossed more times than most Popes some would say the Eliza Effect fooled people enough in the 60s to count. No comment on the AGI claim you are responding to - but them putting GPT4 in a septic bubble suit is not relevant.

Re: A New Mode of Cancer Treatment

#170

Post by ImHereToVote »

93po wrote: post #147
ImHereToVote wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US Federal government paid for the gain of function research under the Trump administration. This is still the most likely source for the novel part of the virus.

This might be the biggest “blame trump” stretch I’ve ever seen

Who blamed Trump?
Post reply on HN