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

Please ignore the deluge of complete nonsense about Q*

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 208 posts

Re: Please ignore the deluge of complete nonsense about Q*

#41

Post by mycologos »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #9
qualifiedai wrote: post #3

Yann has been a refreshing source of reason and common sense with regards to AI safety, regulation and open-source. I wish we had more people like him and less AI doomer cultists.

People like his takes because he gives an authoritative gloss to what they already believe. But his points are usually lacking in argument or rigor. Anyone that essentially expects the public to trust them when it comes to the outcome of AI/AGI should be view with suspicion.

At the same time, it seems like some antidote is needed to the breathless, quasi-mystical hype that cryptic OpenAI claims seem designed to stoke. Demanding precise and substantive criticisms of something about which almost no technical details have been provided seems like an unfair bar.

Re: Please ignore the deluge of complete nonsense about Q*

#42

Post by avsteele »

qualifiedai wrote: post #13
hackinthebochs wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People like his takes because he gives an authoritative gloss to what they already believe. But his points are usually lacking in argument or rigor. Anyone that essentially expects the public to trust them when it comes to the outcome of AI/AGI should be view with suspicion.

On the contrary, he gives good arguments about why open is safer and closed is more dangerous whereas other side gives, imho, convoluted arguments and asks for them to be proven wrong (as opposed to trying to prove themselves right).

Please point me to an example of his good arguments.

I only see his posts on Twitter but haven't been impressed.

Re: Please ignore the deluge of complete nonsense about Q*

#43

Post by _yb2s »

qualifiedai wrote: post #3

Yann has been a refreshing source of reason and common sense with regards to AI safety, regulation and open-source. I wish we had more people like him and less AI doomer cultists.

His arguments about safety are all just wishful thinking- he never addresses the substance of “AI doomer” concerns or arguments.

Re: Please ignore the deluge of complete nonsense about Q*

#44

Post by iepathos »

ren_engineer wrote: post #33

The leak about Q* feels like an olive branch to let the former OpenAI board and Ilya save a bit of face, probably part of the terms for Sam coming back plus it distracts from all the drama and puts a positive spin on things. >"The board didn't handle things well, but they were right to be concerned because OpenAI did have some sort of research breakthrough" Not coincidence that this leaks after Sam comes back, rather…

Good point about timing of the leak. IMO the whole fiasco still reeks of incompetence and no PR move can wash that clean.

Re: Please ignore the deluge of complete nonsense about Q*

#45

Post by eigenvalue »

ren_engineer wrote: post #33

The leak about Q* feels like an olive branch to let the former OpenAI board and Ilya save a bit of face, probably part of the terms for Sam coming back plus it distracts from all the drama and puts a positive spin on things. >"The board didn't handle things well, but they were right to be concerned because OpenAI did have some sort of research breakthrough" Not coincidence that this leaks after Sam comes back, rather…

To be fair, Altman separately alluded to a recent big discovery/breakthrough in a talk shortly before all the drama went down.

Re: Please ignore the deluge of complete nonsense about Q*

#46

Post by qualifiedai »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #38
qualifiedai wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary, he gives good arguments about why open is safer and closed is more dangerous whereas other side gives, imho, convoluted arguments and asks for them to be proven wrong (as opposed to trying to prove themselves right).

His arguments in defense of barreling forward with AI are terrible. They have zero chance to convince someone who doesn't share his intuitions/interests. For example: https://twitter.com/ylecun/status/1718764953534939162 How easily smart people convince themselves of what they want to be true with zero self-awareness makes me much more fearful of what's to come. >other side gives, imho, convoluted arguments and asks…

The default in science is that the side arguing a point has the burden of proving it correct. Not asking the other side to prove them wrong.

Re: Please ignore the deluge of complete nonsense about Q*

#47

Post by discard129 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #39
renewiltord wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doomers thought GPT-2 was too dangerous to release. I guess one can be Dalio successful by calling doom at every instant like Dalio.

Well, GPT-2 led directly to GPT-3. GPT-3 led to GPT-3.5 and then to GPT-4. GPT-4 might lead to all of us losing our source of income, so they may yet be proven right (economic turmoil can be an x-risk if it's large enough).

[dead]

Re: Please ignore the deluge of complete nonsense about Q*

#48

Post by benatkin »

wkat4242 wrote: post #29
PopePompus wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the Anti-doomers will be right many times, and wrong at most once.

The point is moot anyway. If someone can build it someone will. Laws and impending Doom or not. It's probably going to be better if it's us than Russia or China.

That's a reductive argument, and won't work with me. What we have is tantamount to an arms race, and trying to suppress another country's development of tech that could be used against them is a thing. We have already restricted access to our microchips to China specifically and Russia through broad sanctions. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/17/business/economy/ai-chips... Russia isn't poised for the current crop of AI tech anyway.

Re: Please ignore the deluge of complete nonsense about Q*

#49

Post by famouswaffles »

ren_engineer wrote: post #33

The leak about Q* feels like an olive branch to let the former OpenAI board and Ilya save a bit of face, probably part of the terms for Sam coming back plus it distracts from all the drama and puts a positive spin on things. >"The board didn't handle things well, but they were right to be concerned because OpenAI did have some sort of research breakthrough" Not coincidence that this leaks after Sam comes back, rather…

There were leaks/hints of a breakthrough (though nothing specific) before the whole firing fiasco.

Re: Please ignore the deluge of complete nonsense about Q*

#50

Post by concordDance »

qualifiedai wrote: post #13
hackinthebochs wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People like his takes because he gives an authoritative gloss to what they already believe. But his points are usually lacking in argument or rigor. Anyone that essentially expects the public to trust them when it comes to the outcome of AI/AGI should be view with suspicion.

On the contrary, he gives good arguments about why open is safer and closed is more dangerous whereas other side gives, imho, convoluted arguments and asks for them to be proven wrong (as opposed to trying to prove themselves right).

I've read a fair bit of LeCunn and frankly have been very unimpressed. He is, as far as I can tell, the only big AI name who doesn't think that if we somehow managed to make an actual superintelligent AI it wouldn't be dangerous.
Post reply on HN