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

There is no hard takeoff

geohot.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 190 posts

Re: There is no hard takeoff

#61

Post by bad_alloc »

neatze wrote: post #6

> Oh wait…every hedge fund bro is already doing this. And most of them aren’t billionaires. The problem is your model needs to include all the computers playing the market, and it also needs to include the other hedge fund bros themselves. This strategy only dominates if you have more compute than the whole market itself, which you don’t. Best part of this article, honestly, I did not expected this, of-course one can…

And it fundamentally ignores that the market is likely totally incomputable in both the short and long term.

Re: There is no hard takeoff

#62

Post by doubelstandard »

threeseed wrote: post #50
scaramanga wrote: post #40

Am I the only one who sees a jumbled stream of barely coherent semi-thoughts and word salad?

The inventor of UML, Grady Booch deals with people like this on Twitter every day. People seem to think that because ChatGPT appears to be intelligent that somehow we are on the cusp of a new AGI world. And that we need to serious thought leaders like George Hotz and other arrogant tech-bros to rescue us. It's just crypto all over again. The real thought leaders are going to be those in academia, government etc. Bori…

The government and academia are mostly bureaucrats that go along with the conventional wisdom.

Independent thought doesnt get tied down by bureaucratic organizations.

Its always been like this and always will.

Behind the appearance of boring personalities there are... boring personalities

Re: There is no hard takeoff

#63

Post by nonethewiser »

threeseed wrote: post #50
scaramanga wrote: post #40

Am I the only one who sees a jumbled stream of barely coherent semi-thoughts and word salad?

The inventor of UML, Grady Booch deals with people like this on Twitter every day. People seem to think that because ChatGPT appears to be intelligent that somehow we are on the cusp of a new AGI world. And that we need to serious thought leaders like George Hotz and other arrogant tech-bros to rescue us. It's just crypto all over again. The real thought leaders are going to be those in academia, government etc. Bori…

Academics may know some subtleties better, but not of the real world.

Re: There is no hard takeoff

#64

Post by tysam_and »

I think this is a good casual introduction to the marketplace dynamics of how ML will impact the market. I do, however, disagree as I feel that this version of things is a bit too sterile, theoretical, and 'academic', and assumes a more open-information set of competitive strategies among potentially ideal agents from a game theoretic perspective. We can see this is absolutely not the case 'in real life'. To blatantly poke a bit of a (potential) hole in one of his examples -- Exxon-Mobil is one of the clearest examples of the monopolization-blobbification of power that I'd contend _does_ cause the very phenomenon that he's defending against.

An updated version: There will be a log-normally distributed set of winners and losers from the exponential effects of ML and 'AI', and the flatness of this curve will be almost entirely solely determined by the governance of the various countries in the world over different economic and/or informational policies. Other than that, the information asymmetry is going to make it a power-bloodbath as we go through our informational-industrial revolution.

While I'm here, while I think Hotz does contribute a lot of good to the field, though I do have a bit of an actual minor personal beef with him. He said he was going to reimplement https://github.com/tysam-code/hlb-CIFAR10 in tinygrad, bashed a few parts of the code (my feelings!) for a while on stream, and then gave up a few hours later because of the empirical speed/occupancy numbers. >:( I want my fast reimplementation, George. Just do it.

Re: There is no hard takeoff

#65

Post by jagged-chisel »

reedf1 wrote: post #32

He makes a good point. The only real way to "summon the demon" is if AGI is centralized. If each of us has a maximally intelligent AGI in our phone - and it is us as individuals controlling the prompts, then the playing field is levelled. Unstoppable force meets unstoppable force. Gun meets gun. A tale as old as society.

Tangent: We have some scifi about networked AI. If we have maximally intelligent AGI in our phones, we should probably keep them all firewalled.

Re: There is no hard takeoff

#66

Post by dadarecit »

threeseed wrote: post #50
scaramanga wrote: post #40

Am I the only one who sees a jumbled stream of barely coherent semi-thoughts and word salad?

The inventor of UML, Grady Booch deals with people like this on Twitter every day. People seem to think that because ChatGPT appears to be intelligent that somehow we are on the cusp of a new AGI world. And that we need to serious thought leaders like George Hotz and other arrogant tech-bros to rescue us. It's just crypto all over again. The real thought leaders are going to be those in academia, government etc. Bori…

I hope you’re trolling, for your sake

Re: There is no hard takeoff

#67

Post by QVVRP4nYz »

scaramanga wrote: post #40

Am I the only one who sees a jumbled stream of barely coherent semi-thoughts and word salad?

Well, he always looked like a guy who can hyper focus on single task for few months. That is great aptitude for breaking security but not necessary for stuff that requires long process of development and improvement. In other words Comma.ai: https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/13/17561484/george-hotz-comm...

Re: There is no hard takeoff

#68

Post by tysam_and »

floor_ wrote: post #51
scaramanga wrote: post #40

Am I the only one who sees a jumbled stream of barely coherent semi-thoughts and word salad?

[flagged]

He goes from thing to thing a lot. He seems to be very strongly on the spectrum, and maybe even AuDHD. I can associate with how he thinks a little bit, though I've tried to let the temporally-extreme assholishness attributes go enough to not associate really with that side of him.

Re: There is no hard takeoff

#69

Post by Cthulhu_ »

threeseed wrote: post #50
scaramanga wrote: post #40

Am I the only one who sees a jumbled stream of barely coherent semi-thoughts and word salad?

The inventor of UML, Grady Booch deals with people like this on Twitter every day. People seem to think that because ChatGPT appears to be intelligent that somehow we are on the cusp of a new AGI world. And that we need to serious thought leaders like George Hotz and other arrogant tech-bros to rescue us. It's just crypto all over again. The real thought leaders are going to be those in academia, government etc. Bori…

Boring policy people are almost never thoughtleaders though, you require extraverted traits and populism to become one of those, do presentations at large conferences, that kinda thing.

Re: There is no hard takeoff

#70

Post by gizmo »

em500 wrote: post #17
neatze wrote: post #6

> Oh wait…every hedge fund bro is already doing this. And most of them aren’t billionaires. The problem is your model needs to include all the computers playing the market, and it also needs to include the other hedge fund bros themselves. This strategy only dominates if you have more compute than the whole market itself, which you don’t. Best part of this article, honestly, I did not expected this, of-course one can…

That argument is a variation of the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH), that at any moment market prices already reflect all information available to the public. Or as the old joke goes, two economists are walking down the street and pass by a hundred dollar bill without picking it up. A little while later one turns to the other and asks "was that a hundred dollar bill on the ground?" To which the other replies "it mu…

With the Efficient Market Hypothesis it doesn't matter what people think because prices end up converging on reality. Everybody crunches SEC filings and stock/bond prices follow from that. That's relatively easy, and requires very little compute.

Hotz is arguing the opposite. His argument is that the market converges to some kind of consensus price, but that price is a combination of what people think a security is actually worth but also to a large part to what participants think other people mistakenly believe a security is worth.

Crunching SEC filings won't get you anywhere anymore. You also have to reverse engineer what other people believe, otherwise you end up waiting for years (or forever) for the market to come to your point of view. And when everybody acts on what they believe other people are thinking you can spend an infinite amount of compute trying to level each other. Unless one party has the majority of compute then they can outcompute everybody else put together.

Post reply on HN