121–130 of 226 posts
“Well, if AGI is gonna take over the world, better I develop it than someone else…”
"Our moat is first mover advantage on destroying all of humanity"
I really think the calculus is about integration / immortality, and the staggeringly few humans who might have that opportunity.
I hope I am wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It’s amusing that from one side of your mouth you’re complaining about the frequency which John appears on hackernews, but from the other side of your mouth you’re relegating his body of work to “some cool games 20-30 years ago”. Yes, as a younger man he focused his expertise into pioneering developments in the video game space. But what of his engineering contributions to the fields of performance auto-motives, rock…
His relevance in tech is dried up as evidenced by the parroting of bullshit without taking a modicum of a second to actually think it through. I don’t particularly care what a dude that got rich making video games invests in.
Edit:
Listen guys, funding ventures != personally contributing to tech as the user I responded to is implying. This worship of carmack is weird. Like bezos also funded a rocket company, but isn’t worshiped for “contributions to rocket science”. Hypocrites.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
There aren’t enough John Carmack submissions. He has great insight and has lived quite a full life in the industry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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…
Curious to know how you found this paper? I'd like to be able to find interesting papers but I've not found a place of curation unfortunately.
Many of the papers go over my head at times of course (despite my interest, I'm firmly a layman!)
More generally, I've had a lot of success with searching for meta-analysis papers on topics I'm interested in, since the authors have already done the hard work of researching the literature and presenting core takeaways (as well as providing terms for more searches).
1: https://bsky.app/profile/abeba.bsky.social or https://twitter.com/Abebab
2: https://bsky.app/profile/olivia.science or https://twitter.com/o_guest
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.
especially given that according to Wiki he started working on AI in 2019, since then tons of stuff happened in this area, but no results from him.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
My back of a napkin definition is that AGI, given the same information and tools as an IQ 100 human, is able to do all of the same tasks that you could ask a human to do, at the same quality level, as well as recall the experience some time later, like a human would likely be able to do.
Furthermore this "must behave like a human" blindness represents both a danger, and a way to miss intelligence capabilities leaving them unused/under capitalized. Humans behave like humans because we have human bodies with particular sets of strengths and weaknesses. Other 'intelligent' actors with different embodiment will necessarily behave differently.
Couple that with humans have become far more intelligent and stronger by using tools, that the ability to 'universally' interface with external tooling, at least in my subjective opinion is what will be the defining factor of higher intelligences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is not, what he is advocating, at the timestamp you referred to.
After watching the video, I agree with that summarization of Rich's arguments. Building AI so humanity can go gently into that good night seemed very much the theme of that talk. What is your take on it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is not, what he is advocating, at the timestamp you referred to.
>That is ... what he is advocating, at the timestamp you referred to. There's no such thing as taking a quote out of context, only enhancing it!
> Carmack and Sutton are deeply focused on developing a genuine AI prototype by 2030, including establishing, advancing and documenting AGI signs of life. Seems a bit inappropriate to use the phrase "signs of life" here. In this context, it sounds like they're bringing sentience into the conversation, which I don't think Carmack is interested in contemplating or discussing.
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.