This isn't even an argument.
There is no hard takeoff
121–130 of 190 posts
Re: There is no hard takeoff
#122Earlier 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.
I was a huge fan of him in the 2010s when he was fighting the good fight for right to repair / sideload / do whatever. He was a bit of an idol while I spent my own time hacking Xbox hard drives and building tooling to write xfat headers and such.
It just seems he hasn't grown a jot since then. I've been guilty of writing stuff like this even in recent years, but I've grown enough to check myself and hold a higher bar for the quality of my writing. Assuming he did read this back to himself, the fact that he saw it as publishable is a bit sad.
Re: There is no hard takeoff
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just look up any serious, non-quacky overview about how it works. If that’s excessive, just consider the empirical fact that we have created it (that’s also why we know exactly how it works), that might be enough.
We know exactly what it does. However, how it actually works we haven't the faintest.
If you really think so, I wouldn’t sleep at night if I were you. Thankfully, we actually understand fairly well how it works (cf. the “we’ve built it” part). That we may not know exactly how any particular output is produced is what sometimes happens when you build things that behave non-deterministically. Perhaps you give RNGs and bugs an undeserved aura of mystery.
Re: There is no hard takeoff
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
"You don't need to worry about AI becoming a superintelligence because the universe is big and complex."
I think the point he is making is that competition will prevent others from being able to FOOM and 51% everyone else and "win" outright to the point that it is dangerous. Or competition will prevent one player from getting the "powder keg".
Competition can do that if it is fair competition and a good game design. That is why rules and regulations are important in any game or it becomes Calvinball where the only rule is there are no rules and "it can't be played the same way twice" [1], which sounds great until you start losing to cheats. Though even that has some aspect of competition, the changing of rules in your favor while others change the rules in their favor.
The flaw in the thinking is that there will be "fair" competition. Any game design with good regulations and caps on game theory advantages (especially the cheat) "fair" competition is attainable. In game theory, if the other side cheats and your side keeps cooperating, you will lose every time. There is a great little game theory game that highlights it here called The Evolution of Trust. [2]
In a market with collusion, or excessive advantage, this may not be possible to retain fairness. Even right now we can see with overweight/top heavy wealth players in capitalism if there is collusion or one player gets too big, and there is no anti-trust or "blue shell", then that player will win every time. AI needs an anti-trust or "blue shell" to knock down any player that is too advanced, but that might not be possible. Doing that is barely possible in a market run by humans now.
The market is a garden, you have to help the seeds and cull back the overgrowth at the top. This is so the whole garden can thrive, lower seeds, middle plants and large production. Right now the large overgrowth gets all the benefits, policy control, water and nutrients, taking over the garden and even harming themselves with the overgrowth.
Most real world game theory and design would be horrible game design where the larger player always wins. Now imagine a game that the larger player controls the game design, you'd never be able to nerf them.
If one player can get the "powder keg" everyone, we need the game to be able to "blue shell" the bigger and potentially colluding/cheating player.
[1] Calvinball https://calvinandhobbes.fandom.com/wiki/Calvinball
[2] The Evolution of Trust https://ncase.me/trust/
Re: There is no hard takeoff
#125Earlier 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 find him very entertaining to listen to, and I often end up agreeing with him, but he’s definitely not the most “coherent” individual out there (like jobs/woz/carmack/pg/etc.) At the same time, he’s out there talking and writing, I’m sure if he continues he’ll get good. Nobody’s born a good writer and you only become one by writing a lot.
I don't wish him any ill and hope the same... But it's been over a decade since I started following him and if there is a trajectory to maturity and quality in his writing, I haven't been able to track it.
And that's putting aside his recent Twitter drama ...
Re: There is no hard takeoff
#126I loved the analogy of AGI takeoff with markets. People change their behavior when faced with new environments. If AI ever becomes threatening, there is no way we won't do anything and there is no way AI will reliably predict how we will respond.
Re: There is no hard takeoff
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 a…
> In the short run, the market is a voting machine. In the long run, it’s a weighing machine.
Re: There is no hard takeoff
#128[dead]
Re: There is no hard takeoff
#129Am I the only one who sees a jumbled stream of barely coherent semi-thoughts and word salad?
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…
Ask yourself why you’re so repulsed by him, it’s probably not due to his writing skill
Re: There is no hard takeoff
#130When did foom become a word?
It's been an onomatopoeic word from the sound a big fire starting makes for a long time. It seems to have come into use for AI over a decade ago: https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/ai-go-foomhtml , https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/foom
I see. it's like, Vrrroom? The takeoff sound for the AI blast off?
Back under my rock I go