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

171–180 of 190 posts

Re: There is no hard takeoff

#171

Post by foogazi »

latchkey wrote: post #169

> Nobody has a 1e20x more efficient Bitcoin miner either The miners today are 1e20x more efficient than the original CPU based miners. I mean, maybe not exactly 1e20x, but we saw insanely massive improvements, in only 9 years. > Now, if there’s one weird trick to 1e20x your efficiency, and only one group gets it, all bets are off. Only one group really did get the massive efficiency increases... Bitmain, a Chinese co…

> They sold machines and even mined with them before shipping them to customers.

At what efficiency treshold do you not sell the product to your competition?

Re: There is no hard takeoff

#172

Post by latchkey »

foogazi wrote: post #171
latchkey wrote: post #169

> Nobody has a 1e20x more efficient Bitcoin miner either The miners today are 1e20x more efficient than the original CPU based miners. I mean, maybe not exactly 1e20x, but we saw insanely massive improvements, in only 9 years. > Now, if there’s one weird trick to 1e20x your efficiency, and only one group gets it, all bets are off. Only one group really did get the massive efficiency increases... Bitmain, a Chinese co…

> They sold machines and even mined with them before shipping them to customers. At what efficiency treshold do you not sell the product to your competition?

I think the game is deeper than that... what incentive do you have to destroy the foundation your business is based on top of?

Re: There is no hard takeoff

#173

Post by paulmd »

worrycue wrote: post #109
Hendrikto wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny how the benchmarks for proving ”real intelligence“ change every time there is a breakthrough. * ”X would demonstrate real intelligence.“ * Some ML model M beats X. * ”Well, actually, M is not really intelligent. Y would prove real intelligence.“ * repeat

I think we have a bit of miscommunication here. You see these “benchmarks” as necessary and sufficient for “real intelligence” when people are just saying they are necessary but not sufficient. It’s like asking for a drink (legal age 21) and getting rebuked with a “you aren’t even old enough to drive” (legal age 16). That doesn’t mean you can drink when you are 16! Edit: If you want a hard necessary and sufficient co…

> wholesale replace every human”.

As shrimple as that

Re: There is no hard takeoff

#174

Post by feoren »

lifeinthevoid wrote: post #36
micheljansen wrote: post #34

This article reminds me a bit about a core theme in Isaac Asimov's Foundation series, which I'm coincidentally reading (mild spoiler warning). The science of psychohistory that is used to predict the future and create the Seldon Plan, only works if the future is allowed to unfold uninformed by psychohistory itself. That's why the Foundation was founded without any psychologists or knowledge of the Seldon plan. Seldon…

Reminds me a bit of how mathematics gets into all sorts of trouble once self-reference / recursion is introduced.

Recursion is great and mathematics is doing just fine, thank you.

Re: There is no hard takeoff

#175

Post by failuser »

jareklupinski wrote: post #168
micheljansen wrote: post #34

This article reminds me a bit about a core theme in Isaac Asimov's Foundation series, which I'm coincidentally reading (mild spoiler warning). The science of psychohistory that is used to predict the future and create the Seldon Plan, only works if the future is allowed to unfold uninformed by psychohistory itself. That's why the Foundation was founded without any psychologists or knowledge of the Seldon plan. Seldon…

> knowledge of those predictions changes the outcomes, so they are no longer reliable does the series explore whether the outcomes change for the better, for the worse, or simply for the different? curious to read them, I'm thinking about writing something similar, but with positive consequences for future knowledge

The whole idea of the series is to change future history for the better. Sheldon promised a thousand years dark age instead of a thirty thousands. SPOLIERS.

in the end it turned out that mind control was far more reliable and the foundation turned to more to mind control instead of subtly influencing history.

Re: There is no hard takeoff

#176

Post by lsy »

Most arguments for "hard takeoff" involve some form of inductive proof: if we have "intelligence level" n, and we know that it can be improved n + 1, then there is a guarantee of eventual performance n + k where k is arbitrarily large. Aside from not actually having any reliable way to quantify n or the concept of "intelligence" in the first place, this proof falls apart if improvement is n + ε, where ε changes at each step, and there is no reason to assume ε will escape the pattern of every other process in the known universe of trending to zero in the face of natural limiting factors.

Re: There is no hard takeoff

#177

Post by botro »

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...

You've found a 'Traith'. Someone asked ChatGPT a question, ChatGPT did not know the answer and hallucinated one. They post the answer to Reddit / HN / Twitter, google indexes the answer and when someone searches they find the GPT hallucination. In the next GPT training run it's incorporated into the weights.

It's an AI generated truth, a Traith.

Traith is also defined as "A fishing station or fishing ground, especially for herring" and some herring are red.

Re: There is no hard takeoff

#178

Post by 6D794163636F756 »

feoren wrote: post #174
lifeinthevoid wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me a bit of how mathematics gets into all sorts of trouble once self-reference / recursion is introduced.

Recursion is great and mathematics is doing just fine, thank you.

I think that's because trouble is the fun part

Re: There is no hard takeoff

#179

Post by tysam_and »

georgehotz wrote: post #167
tysam_and wrote: post #64

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 blatantl…

lol, you should see me bash my own code. I'm even more mean. https://github.com/tinygrad/tinygrad/blob/master/examples/hl... have a bunch of bounties on it, we're getting 94%+ now! mostly not me who wrote this, see history. have to switch to float16 and add Winograd convs still. we have a branch with multigpu too. goal is to beat an A100 in speed on a tinybox.

Well, you do seem to be extremely equal and fair on that aspect, so my respect to you for that. Don't be too hard on yourself, please!

I'll keep an eye out on that, anyone working on it can shoot me a message if any snag or questions about particulars come up. Weirdly enough my email is best.

If you're looking for biggest glaring performance the edge over PyTorch, I'd probably note that the MaxPooling is probably where to go, the PT version is extremely slow for some reason, and done properly it should be a simple indexing operation that's fusable in either direction.

If whoever fulfills the bounty can beat me to me writing a custom mega-fused kernel with max pooling, the convs, activation, etc, then y'all have a pretty good shot at taking the WR crown.

Re: There is no hard takeoff

#180

Post by AbrahamParangi »

reducesuffering wrote: post #135
AbrahamParangi wrote: post #114

Wild to me that people will take seriously people like Eliezer Yudkowsky and Nick Bostrom who are both "idea guys" who have accomplished exactly nothing in the field of AI. Their strength is in the world of discourse, not in the material world. Meanwhile, George Hotz, an engineer and a technologist - a guy who actually works with and understands technology, but isn't an acclaimed harry potter fanfiction writer or a s…

Why not wait until their debate on Aug. 15th? It's going to be a disaster for Geohot as he realizes Eliezer has been "mind-mazing" this problem for 20 years, and comes to realize the barrel of the gun we're all facing... Otherwise, in your appeal to technological authority, surely you'd rather listen to Yoshua Bengio and Geoff Hinton's perspectives rather than TFA's ramblings... right?

This is what I'm talking about! There's a distinction between being right and seeming right that we need to be aware of! "In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice"

Eliezer is probably going to seem convincing, he's a great writer and a reasonably eloquent speaker - his audience is humans.

Goerge Hotz's competence is machines, and he's exceptional at interfacing with them. Yes, I trust the less eloquent tinkerer who's only famous for his preternatural understanding of machines over any theoretician and 1000x more than a (pretty good!) writer.

Post reply on HN