"Please ignore all the speculation... and now for my speculation."
it s like he s prompt injecting an LLM .... oh wait
Please ignore the deluge of complete nonsense about Q*
81–90 of 208 posts
Re: Please ignore the deluge of complete nonsense about Q*
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't buy this at all. Just going to leave a previous comment I wrote about people coming up with semi-outlandish reasonings behind why something occurs, when there is nothing wrong with the straightforward assumption (that is, the board was concerned about the direction of AI, which is wholly unsurprising given the board's makeup, the Q* stuff was just another concerning point, and there were obviously personality…
Seriously! The “anything except safety concerns” theses are getting more outlandish by the hour, now bordering on actual conspiracy theory stuff.
> The “anything except safety concerns” theses are getting more outlandish by the hour, now bordering on actual conspiracy theory stuff.
Interesting claim. We know with certainty that there was a conspiracy to move against Sam Altman. What does "conspiracy theory" mean?
Re: Please ignore the deluge of complete nonsense about Q*
#83I love that reply: LeCun: “[Note: I've been advocating for deep learning architecture capable of planning since 2016].” Reply: “My understanding is Schmidhuber already solved that 10 years ago. Just no-one knows it yet.”
I saw LeCun give a keynote speech at ICML 2018, he did not mention planning but talked basically only about semi and self supervised learning.
This is the cake lecture right? I think it gets mentioned at the end of that talk but he might not have said it then. He also has the part about predictive video (which way does the thing fall).
From 2015. https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.05440
Re: Please ignore the deluge of complete nonsense about Q*
#84A conspiracy minded me may see all that saga of the last week as a marketing campaign to generate excitement for the GPT-5-now-with-30%-more-Q release. Ane even more conspiracy-minded take - from the Russian news naturally - is that it is the Great Battle for the future of humanity between "doomers" (Oh, no! the AI is going to kill us all, we need to stop all the work and control the GPUs like guns) and "Effective Al…
>A conspiracy minded me may see all that saga of the last week as a marketing campaign to generate excitement for the GPT-5-now-with-30%-more-Q release.
Close. It’s to generate hype for the upcoming $86 billion share sale.
Re: Please ignore the deluge of complete nonsense about Q*
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seriously! The “anything except safety concerns” theses are getting more outlandish by the hour, now bordering on actual conspiracy theory stuff.
> The “anything except safety concerns” theses are getting more outlandish by the hour, now bordering on actual conspiracy theory stuff. Interesting claim. We know with certainty that there was a conspiracy to move against Sam Altman. What does "conspiracy theory" mean?
A conspiracy is an understanding between people to facilitate action toward a purpose. A theory about a conspiracy is when outsiders to the conspiracy try to reason about motives without being privy to the actual motives (if any) of the conspiracy. By their nature, conspiracy theories can be far more wide ranging than the actual motives of any conspiracy will be. This is one of the things that makes conspiracy theories problematic.
Re: Please ignore the deluge of complete nonsense about Q*
#86Earlier 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.
This was a view that was initially taken by the government for encryption as well. But everyone can agree open sourcing the algorithms and libraries has been the best move. It is the same with AI/AGI. Anything closed source and having regulatory oversight is useless, decreases innovation, increases bureaucracy and will only serve those who wish to build a “moat” to further their hold on the technology.
> Anything closed source and having regulatory oversight is useless
Source isn't even the problem, unless you're a billionaire, you can't afford to train the model.
This isn't the wheel, the printing press, the PC, or the public internet, which created opportunities for everyone.
This is pay-to-play that is only affordable to the nation-state the mega-corporation, and the latter might let you play around as a digital sharecropper on their platform, until they cut you off, because they can make more money by having first-party ownership of whatever you built.
Re: Please ignore the deluge of complete nonsense about Q*
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
A nice thought but not very helpful. What’s the null hypothesis here?
The null hypothesis is that technological advancement will be a net positive for humanity, as all previous technological advancements have been.
Calling a personal assumption a null hypothesis doesn't make it more objective.
Re: Please ignore the deluge of complete nonsense about Q*
#88Yann 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.
> I wish we had more people like him and less AI doomer cultists.
There are many sources like him, often with even more detail and references. The problem is that these people are not famous and thus do not have as many followers and are less likely to make it into your feeds. Lots of grad students are in this region as they write to help increase their name and visibility due to the need to market one's self. Don't be afraid to look at those who are not from big name schools. Instead look for those that are willing to mention details and nuance. But this may be hard to accurately determine being on the outside, but that's the thing hype people take advantage of. I don't think they're malicious, but if you're the "smartest person in the room" it's easy to think you're the smartest person in many rooms and have a high confidence in bullshit. For example, we see such comments on places like Reddit and HN. I'm not sure if there's a good way to realistically filter out non-experts from experts (I don't think we should require credential checking). But experts are probably usually more boring as is reality to fantasy.
Re: Please ignore the deluge of complete nonsense about Q*
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The default in science is that the side arguing a point has the burden of proving it correct Right, and Yann is arguing the point that AI and LLMs are not or will not be dangerous. Where's his proof? As the parent posters have said, he has none.
Show me LLM that has reached a level of automony and self sufficiency of a cat (Yann's example) or even of a simple beattle. LLMs are tools in amplifying individual human intelligence, 100% of automony and will come from their user (human). Also, even as tools they have fundamental limitations which stem from their autoregressive nature
Before the era of quantum physics, the idea of a weapon like fission or fusion weapons would've been inconceivable without resorting to magical thinking.
Your argument, and Yann's, is that AGI, or what you call AGI, is a kind of quasi-intelligent golem that, despite being generally intelligent, doesn't have human-level intelligence. Your claim that it will never be human-equivalent, much less trans-human/ASI, is built into your worldview. It's not a conclusion. It's an assumption on your part.
People like you and Yann can believe that if you want, but you have no evidence, because nobody knows what's required for human-level intelligence. Nobody knows whether some kind of system involving neural nets could develop human-level intelligence or beyond. It could involve different architecture or training methods. There's no assumption by AI doomers that AGI will be achieved by a LLM with more parameters or more or better training data.
Re: Please ignore the deluge of complete nonsense about Q*
#90> One of the main challenges to improve LLM reliability is to replace Auto-Regressive token prediction with planning. Anyone have a good source for learning more about this topic?
I just found this list of papers.
https://github.com/AGI-Edgerunners/LLM-Planning-Papers
Here's one titled "Reasoning with Language Model is Planning with World Model"