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

91–100 of 190 posts

Re: There is no hard takeoff

#91

Post by tomrod »

epiccoleman wrote: post #41
anileated wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To see how “AI” can be dangerous just look how social media bubble/recommendation algorithms would radicalize people, even with much cruder ML. People tend to miss that it’s not about some model starting to “think” and act all sci-fi evil, just us humans applying powerful tech in irresponsible ways that we either don’t bother to assess due to lack of awareness or assess positively due to a conflict of interest (money…

Right. This has been my take since ChatGPT hit the scene. I'm not really afraid of Skynet or AM. What worries me is that AI will accelerate the enshittification of everything as it gets baked into everything. Think of the experience of trying to get any kind of help from a giant company with call centers. You have some legitimate problem or grievance. Any thinking person would agree that a resolution is in order. But…

> the enshittification of everything

Core to this process is a single entity controlling the platform or interface.

Support open source.

Re: There is no hard takeoff

#92

Post by newaccount74 »

_cjse wrote: post #73

>Oh wait…every hedge fund bro is already doing this. And most of them aren’t billionaires. The contra to this is some of them are billionaires, and therefore this strategy is working, but for just a few of them. >why would any one system ever have a large majority of the compute? Compute will be distributed in a power law. A power law probability distribution means one system absolutely can have a large majority of t…

> The contra to this is some of them are billionaires, and therefore this strategy is working, but for just a few of them

I have no clue how hedge fund managers make their money, but I was under the assumption that it involved charging their clients hefty fees for managing the funds.

Re: There is no hard takeoff

#93

Post by bartvk »

scaramanga wrote: post #40

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

No, I also failed to understand what the writer attempted to bring across. I’d be very happy if someone could summarize the blog in one paragraph.

Re: There is no hard takeoff

#94

Post by M4v3R »

hardware2win wrote: post #38

I will be worried when AI will constantly beat top1 league of legends team in normal environment Chess is way simpler imo.

AI already has beaten world champions in Dota 2 [1], I can't imagine League is that much more difficult so if someone wanted to build an AI agent to beat everyone else in League they probably could, just no one got around to actually doing it.

[1] https://openai.com/research/openai-five-defeats-dota-2-world...

Re: There is no hard takeoff

#96

Post by [deleted] »

hiAndrewQuinn wrote: post #83
KnobbleMcKnees wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My problem with this isn't even that it's a bunch of strung together ideas without a clear narrative or conclusion; enough practice at this combined with actual deep field knowledge results in works like Godel, Escher, Bach . My problem is that GHotz is a shitty writer, has puddle deep knowledge of anything that isn't iPhone firmware, and watching him play at being a freelance tech journo and produce this kind of hol…

I have a morbid fondness for the fella, because he reminds me of how I sounded a few years back when I was tearing my hair out trying to figure out where all this stuff was going to go, while also being too drunk and too lonely to get any serious research done. I don't think I'd enjoy meeting him in person much, though. I get annoyed by loud personalities like that.

[deleted]

Re: There is no hard takeoff

#97

Post by corsix »

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…

Per https://www.stateof.ai/compute, one of the players in the market has ten thousand GPUs in a private cloud. Out-computing just that one player is hard enough, let alone out-computing the whole market.

Re: There is no hard takeoff

#98

Post by ChatGTP »

bob1029 wrote: post #4
WithinReason wrote: post #2

The main issue with this argument that current AI models are extremely inefficient. Models evaluate all weights on every pass, LLMs recall their entirety of knowledge just to output a part of a word and then do it all again. Often a hand crafted algorithm can achieve what a neural network can in a small fraction of compute. There is likely a 1e4x-1e6x compute gap that can be achieved with the right algorithm, maybe e…

> the amount of computation available today in a PC could be enough to do things (good and bad) way beyond human ability. I am in the camp that this is possible and that humans have achieved it already. I believe things are going to get very weird when these techniques become mainstream. The GPU-cluster-bound algorithms are just a tiny stepping stone. Do we start taking computers away from people? What do we do about…

I’d say your going to get “AI” rammed so far down your throat it might as well come out of your ass before anyone is going to let their puters be taken away.

Re: There is no hard takeoff

#99

Post by FeepingCreature »

mysterydip wrote: post #59
FeepingCreature wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you ask GPT that? That'd explain how it didn't notice that "Gate" doesn't start with an "O". Note that ChatGPT has real difficulties resolving words to letters. Anyway, it's not an acronym, it's an onomatopoeia for an explosion. It's a memorable way of representing an intelligence explosion: "AI go foom." (Wild hand gesture strongly recommended.)

Thanks, that makes more sense. I found "Fast Out Of (the gate) Model". Seemed odd but it fit so I listed it. I did a google search, but I should have realized that by this point they're tainted by AI answers. For example: https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/12bisxu/what_d...

I mean, the usage of "foom" in the context of AI, like in the linked post, is the hard-takeoff one explained in that Reddit post. Goes back decades.

Re: There is no hard takeoff

#100

Post by wslh »

The problem with really hard problems as AI/AGI is that people extremely intelligent in one topic (e.g. GH in RE) uses its influence in another topic and the intelligence is not easily transferrable from one domain to the other, and even within a same domain.

This is a typical epistemological crux that can be seen through history like Newton dealing with alchemy [1] and Einstein working on an unified physics theory. You can be the most intelligent human on earth but that is not enough.

In this particular case, GH opinion could be written by any journalist.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studie...

Post reply on HN