71–80 of 226 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes you think that? What we can LLMs are a specific architecture that literally does predict the next token, one at a time. This isn’t the only way to generate text. Perhaps humans use a method that synthesizes all the text at once. Or some other, unimaginable way.
Not sure about everyone else, but I write one word at a time.
> partnership to bring greater focus and urgency to the creation of artificial general intelligence (AGI) Why is this urgent?
A complete departure from the topic but I have the same symptomatic awkward pose when standing for a photo as Carmack has in the article :) But at the same time when you hold your hands back it can look even weirder! Where to put your hands in photos remains a mystery to me.
Hands behind my back also does not feel natural for me, so I wouldn’t do it
I think in this particular photo, arms crossed would have looked good for Carmack since he’s in the middle
For you, I’d say play around a bit. I think the thing that matters most is that you find it comfortable and you feel relaxed
Their focus is long running digital intelligences that interact with their environment over long periods of time. I enjoyed reading The Alberta Plan when it was released earlier this year https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.11173
Ethics/privacy aside ... I wondered the other day what the result would be if you strapped a microphone on a baby and every utterance that both the baby and mic heard was fed through speech-to-text and went toward training the baby's personal LLM . By the time the child had grown to an adult I wonder what kind of results their LLM would produce and the degree to which it might compare to what the child (now grown) wo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps there is some belief in this that an AGI can save us from our biggest problems? Energy Crisis, Environmental Pollution, Waging Wars. But I agree with you ... it is not really urgent since we know answers for the most of the problems but do not like the solution.
A “solution” that isn’t viable nor palatable isn’t a true solution; it is often merely a hope that people are not people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can’t go into specifics for obvious reasons, but I can tell you they’re a smart, capable crew, with lots of resources, and time is on their side. If I had to place bets on which lab will invent agi, they’d be near the top, precisely because they’re exploring ideas that others don’t seem to be focusing on. It’s the early stages, so it’ll take a few years to get to results. But they’re laser-focused. There are a bunc…
If I had to place bets on which lab will invent agi I'd bet against "invent AGI" being a coherent or agreed upon thing, and I'd also bet against the "wake-up" scenario of a system saying "I'm AGI" Which lab invented deep learning? Certainly U Toronto had the breakthrough that made a 30+ year old field exciting, but there was a lot of work in Montreal, NYU, Google, DeepMind, OpenAI, and many other places
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought about this too. People say that LLM models are only saying the most common tokens that come after the previous token. And that this makes them incomparable to human intelligence. But Humans are basically long running LLMs that are retrained in real-time. We are the product of our environment.
You’re vastly oversimplifying humans. That’s like saying a physics simulation is basically an entire sub universe on your computer. It sounds true, but it’s just not. It’s a gross oversimplification I think Gödel had a proof for how it’s impossible to fully describe a system from within that system. That’s the nail in the coffin for AGI. No matter how much data we give it, no matter how big it is, it’ll never be “hum…
A complete departure from the topic but I have the same symptomatic awkward pose when standing for a photo as Carmack has in the article :) But at the same time when you hold your hands back it can look even weirder! Where to put your hands in photos remains a mystery to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Creator of "Centre for Effective Altruism"? Longtermism? No thanks. I thought that philosophy has been debunked as a scam after the likes of Sam Bankman and others. I mean, living unethically today in order to affect future lives positively is not for me.
> I mean, living unethically today in order to affect future lives positively is not for me. Though it is an almost-inescapable conclusion of being a utilitarian and significantly smarter than average. If you can defraud millions and put that money to work saving lives and buying many more QALYs than the defrauded would have otherwise had, you have a moral obligation to do so. ...there are many ways to make utilitari…
So defrauding millions to accrue QALYs (for whom?) is morally acceptable?
> Though it is an almost-inescapable conclusion of being a utilitarian and significantly smarter than average.
A modicum of spirituality or religion will quickly quash this. So you have to add atheism to the requirement. Or at least non-spirituality or belief in materialism (I'm not a philosopher so may be using that term incorrectly).