Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

John Carmack and Rich Sutton partner to accelerate development of AGI

amii.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 226 posts

Re: John Carmack and Rich Sutton partner to accelerate development of AGI

#181

Post by nine_k »

ang_cire wrote: post #98
tharne wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re presupposing every problem has a nice solution. This is almost certainly false

Any solution is a nice solution depending on your frame of reference. There is no such thing as objectively good or bad without defining the acceptable and unacceptable effects.

There is an implied frame of reference that requires the continued existence of humans.

Any solution that violates this boundary condition is "objectively bad", that is, cultures that follow this solution disappear and thus lose the evolution game.

Re: John Carmack and Rich Sutton partner to accelerate development of AGI

#182

Post by AbrahamParangi »

gibsonf1 wrote: post #165

The key issue is that Intelligence requires conceptual awareness of space time. Reinforcement "learning" is about statistics, very likely how our perception faculties work. But that is just the input to intelligence, not intelligence itself.

With whatever respect is due, what you're talking about a vague psychologically based theory of intelligence that actually has a very poor track record of prediction - meanwhile "dumb" statistical ML has no clear theoretical barrier regarding what it might not be able to do!

Let me say that again, if you believe that there is a specific test that AI today will fail tell me it, and I will show you that it either passes it today or that we can be fairly sure it will pass it in some years time.

Re: John Carmack and Rich Sutton partner to accelerate development of AGI

#183

Post by AbrahamParangi »

Gud wrote: post #135

Accelerate AGI So the hardware has finally become powerful enough to create the super mind. Remember this: John Carmack is a hard working games developer. He is not done great philosopher. By chance, some Armageddon level shot has been put in his hands. All I can say, please stop and think for a while Mr Carmack. You are playing with fire. Don’t kill us all, please.

Great philosophers like Karl Marx are responsible for uncountably more evil than the people who create and build things.

Re: John Carmack and Rich Sutton partner to accelerate development of AGI

#184

Post by CuriouslyC »

dartos wrote: post #58
volent wrote: post #28

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…

If the physics simulation accurately reflects the dynamics of physical systems at the large scale and your goal is to see what the stars look like in the future, who cares if it doesn't actually have the entire universe?

Re: John Carmack and Rich Sutton partner to accelerate development of AGI

#185

Post by Gud »

AbrahamParangi wrote: post #183
Gud wrote: post #135

Accelerate AGI So the hardware has finally become powerful enough to create the super mind. Remember this: John Carmack is a hard working games developer. He is not done great philosopher. By chance, some Armageddon level shot has been put in his hands. All I can say, please stop and think for a while Mr Carmack. You are playing with fire. Don’t kill us all, please.

Great philosophers like Karl Marx are responsible for uncountably more evil than the people who create and build things.

Who said Karl Marx was a great philosopher?

Re: John Carmack and Rich Sutton partner to accelerate development of AGI

#187

Post by johnnyworker »

Timon3 wrote: post #173
johnnyworker wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To apply them to human intelligence, you'd have to prove that human intelligence springs from formal axiomatic theories. It applies to everything we could say or think or measure about intelligence (and anything else). All that probably "spring from" things that don't (rely on our axioms), but they are not accessible to us, so that doesn't really help.

> It applies to everything we could say or think or measure about intelligence (and anything else). How do you know? Gödels proof doesn't support your claim since it only applies to formal axiomatic theories. Do you have an alternative proof for his theorems also applying to all other systems?

I know by repeatedly by starting anywhere at all and asking "but why is that?", if you will. Furthermore by pondering it and realizing that even if I ever found a perfectly harmonious explanation for all my observations, I would have no clue if reality wasn't even more complex beyond of what I can perceive of it. So, I'm still only really dealing with my own observations and narratives, and even if I got the answer perfectly right, even if God told me yes, this is how it works, all of it to the last detail, and I understood all of it, I couldn't be sure if there isn't more to it.

Maybe gravity makes things fall down, sure, but maybe there are tiny kobolds in the spaces between all particles with little clipboards that calculate the correct motion and cast spells to move them. I'm not trying to be a smartass, but I honestly tried and could not find bedrock. Can you name (or even just think) something that doesn't rest on something else or an assumption? I honestly can't.

> Gödels proof doesn't support your claim since it only applies to formal axiomatic theories.

"only"? I'd say those axioms are a superset of the sloppy stuff we throw around in our day to day, like "this is a chair"; if we drilled down on our informal speech and thoughts, we'd at best arrive at such axioms, which ultimately rest on things we simply posited (because otherwise there would be nothing to think about, and no way to think about it -- I'm not knocking it per se, just the idea that the quest for truth could possibly ever be complete, which makes it no less noble IMO).

Re: John Carmack and Rich Sutton partner to accelerate development of AGI

#188

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

xpe wrote: post #171
TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or are you talking about something else? I'm talking about immoral or questionable behavior today to justify a possible future. It's like going back in time to kill Hitler's grandfather to prevent Hitler's birth. You have no idea of unintended consequences, and you are intentionally causing harm now for a future completely out of your control (although you deceive yourself into thinking it is in your control by tak…

>> Or are you talking about something else? > I'm talking about immoral or questionable behavior today to justify a possible future. You've outlined a form of deontological ethics, seems to me. You don't subscribe to consequentialism, that fine. But hopefully you recognize there are many moral theories. > It's like going back in time to kill Hitler's grandfather to prevent Hitler's birth. This is a strawman. (A reall…

> You've outlined a form of deontological ethics,

I had to look this up. You've given a modern label to an ancient concept sometimes known as the Golden Rule. I'm not sure why.

>> It's like going back in time to kill Hitler's grandfather to prevent Hitler's birth.

> This is a strawman. (A really loaded one at that.)

It's not intended that way, and I'm posing it with honesty. If it's too loaded, then replace Hitler with, I don't know, . It doesn't matter who the bad guy is; the point is: you kill an innocent person (grandfather_of_bad_guy) in order to mold the future in a way that you think will save more, other innocent lives. Correct?

Re: John Carmack and Rich Sutton partner to accelerate development of AGI

#189

Post by AbrahamParangi »

Gud wrote: post #185
AbrahamParangi wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great philosophers like Karl Marx are responsible for uncountably more evil than the people who create and build things.

Who said Karl Marx was a great philosopher?

Many people have said that historically, I may not agree with them but if the criteria for being a great philosopher is “everyone thinks they’re great” then there are no great philosophers.

Re: John Carmack and Rich Sutton partner to accelerate development of AGI

#190

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

xpe wrote: post #177
TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or are you talking about something else? I'm talking about immoral or questionable behavior today to justify a possible future. It's like going back in time to kill Hitler's grandfather to prevent Hitler's birth. You have no idea of unintended consequences, and you are intentionally causing harm now for a future completely out of your control (although you deceive yourself into thinking it is in your control by tak…

> I lived through the Cold War. I don't need this exercise because, the bottom line is, no one knows what existential risk - if any - will happen. The worst of the Cold War never happened, yet many of us thought it would. Likewise, you might choose to focus on AI as your existential risk, go through all the sacrifices and immoral behaviors that longtermism leads you to do in order to mitigate AI, and then a giant met…

> Your claim seems to boil down to two things: First, people sometimes make very incorrect predictions, so you've stopped worrying about them.

Didn't say I stopped worrying about them: global warming worries me. Ubiquitous microplastics worry me. Heavy metals in our food supply & PFAS in our water worries me.

> Second, instead, you focus on "doing the right thing" based on your ethical criteria (which, as I say in sibling comment, seems to be aligned with deontological ethics -- i.e. the ends don't justify the means.)

To me, the means almost never justify the end. And I understand you see it differently.

> using poor logic

I'm not sure what you deem poor logic, but I would point out that most of human life is based on emotion, not logic. In any case, I enjoy our debate and would be glad to continue in email if you like. See my profile for my email - I did not find yours.

Post reply on HN