101–110 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.
I like Carmack but is it really necessary to have a post about everytime he mentions AI (which is every week for the past year)? So far, his track record in AI research is non-existent.
I agree. The guruism on HN about this guy is crazy. Yeah, he made some really cool games 20-30 years ago, but do we really need a front page post every time he tweets? I'd prefer to hear about the company once they actually get something done.
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…
Gödels theorems are about formal axiomatic theories. To apply them to human intelligence, you'd have to prove that human intelligence springs from formal axiomatic theories. I don't think this is possible, which would mean that you can't apply the theorems.
> No matter how much data we give it, no matter how big it is, it’ll never be “human intelligent” since it’s impossible for us to describe a loss function for being human or describe being human in a dataset.
How do you know? If we were able to fully record whatever is going on in someones brain, we should be able to build a loss function for it. How do you know that this is fundamentally impossible?
> We’ll never be able to evaluate it, since we can’t fully describe what it means to communicate because to do that we’d need to communicate it and that process can’t be fully self describing.
Why not? Again, if you argue that this is due to Gödels theorems, you'd have to prove that our communication itself is based on formal axiomatic theories.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A “solution” that isn’t viable nor palatable isn’t a true solution; it is often merely a hope that people are not people.
You’re presupposing every problem has a nice solution. This is almost certainly false
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
>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. I read about a paper[1] a while back, it was a rather unpleasant animal study in cats. Using two kittens, one was free to look around, but the other they immobilised in some way, and made it see w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you just basing that idea off of sci fi novels?
It would probably be the simplest solution to a naive super intelligent agi. Just take a look at how humanity dealt with dangerous animals. They are mostly no longer around unless in a zoo.
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.
The claim that "humans are basically long running LLMs" oversimplifies the complexity of human cognition and experience. Humans don't just process information; they experience emotions, desires, and subjective experiences that are deeply intertwined with their cognition. LLMs don't have feelings, motivations, or consciousness. Humans have inner subjective experience, self-awareness, and the ability to reflect on our…
"In the end, we are self-perceiving, self-inventing, locked-in mirages that are little miracles of self-reference."
— Douglas Hofstadter, I Am a Strange Loop, p. 363
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_a_Strange_Loop
(Knowing nothing about AI, I have no idea how Hofstadter's philosophies have held up since.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without taking a particular position on how the probabilities shake out, I suggest critically reading “What We Owe the Future” by William MacAskill and:or other long-term writings that use statistical thinking over a wide range of future scenarios.
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.
How can a philosophy be "debunked as a scam" by a fraudster being in the news?
Or are you talking about something else?
One can distort and misuse almost any moral philosophy, such as utilitarianism or any other. History is filled with examples.
You may disagree with particular assessments, conclusions, or even the basic tenets of longtermism. Argue against the philosophy if you like.
Pick an existential risk, such as nuclear proliferation or artificial intelligence. Study the risks and the benefits. But according to what framework? Please do some legwork about _how_ you plan on evaluating various possible future scenarios. This is is hardly controversial.
My recommendation is simple: read MacAskill's book. It is a valuable and different framework than a vast majority of people have really considered. These ideas are not widely percolating yet. You don't need to completely agree with it. If you are thinking person, you probably won't.
Now, if you think I'm missing a key perspective or set of facts or reasoning, please let me know. I'll change my assessment based on good evidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Hell,LLMs can and do output strings of "I'm AGI", so in some sense we're long past that. The problem is as humans we've never defined what it means for a system to be AGI.