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

151–160 of 208 posts

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

#151

Post by _heimdall »

jlpom wrote: post #149
concordDance wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

His reasoning is that good guy’s AI will counteract bad guy’s ones or a an AI that has developed his own objective against humanity if that happens, which is I think a reasonable argument.

He effectively is arguing that the "good guys" will develop a superhero AI that will protect us simply because it feels that is the right thing to do. I'm not sure how any logical basis can be used to back that up, or where any meaningful example of similar behavior that didn't ultimately lose to the "bad guys" can be found in human history.

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

#152

Post by _heimdall »

bangkoksbest wrote: post #136
vkou wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 digita…

The model is the instance because the instance is what is being used at inference time. The training simply produces some set of weights. Open source would mean someone could see and run the model code locally/independently to create an instance. For an LLM, this is much less insurmountable of an issue in terms of resources needed.

We should probably be calling for an open model or open data approach if that's what we think is best. Calling it open source leaves plenty of gray area in the definition.

For example, I run a few instances of open source software though my instances' databases are private.

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

#153

Post by _heimdall »

ratg13 wrote: post #121
lordfrito wrote: post #110

I dunno all this talk about OpenAI lately really feels more and more like hype to me. What they've accomplished so far is really impressive. But until I see AGI for real I won't hold my breath. Just feels to me like some expert/wizard level PR is going on right now.

Nobody respectable has said that AGI will be achieved in the next 5 or even 500 years.

Eliezer Yudkowsky should be respected in the field of AI. Agree or disagree with his level of concern over AI risk, he has made fairly accurate predictions so far. Last I heard, he was predicting that we could be as little as 10-15 years from the level of AI development that he considers to be an extinctions level risk.

Again, there's plenty of different conclusions that can be made on the risk levels but that doesn't change his expectation on timing of development.

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

#154

Post by _heimdall »

pixel8account wrote: post #143
ethanbond wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not just assess each question and each position on its merits, as best you can? No clue why people try to come up with these obviously silly heuristics.

How am I, someone with no experience in AI, supposed to make an informed decision? Certainly not by myself. By reading experts on the topic? But which experts? Twitter ones? In the day of misinformation we need some heuristics (or trusted experts), just look what happened during COVID when people with no experience in medicine suddenly decided they can make their own conclusions.

People without the ability to understand the current body of knowledge and make an educated conclusion, caveated with the known and unknown gaps in current knowledge, simply shouldn't be trying to make conclusions.

Making a decision for oneself is totally reasonable, but there should be a high bar as soon as someone tries to push that as a conclusion that others should follow.

The problem during the pandemic response wasn't that individuals tried to understand and decide for themselves, its that those who were supposed experts got out over their skis and were forcing decisions and conclusions that weren't backed up by data. What's wrong with someone reading studies and deciding whether they themselves want to get vaccinated or west masks, especially when we didn't have solid data to show how those decisions might impact others' rights?

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

#155

Post by thaumasiotes »

anonymouskimmer wrote: post #85
thaumasiotes wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 theori…

> 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.

This seems like it would apply equally well to all theories.

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

#157

Post by yowlingcat »

_heimdall wrote: post #153
ratg13 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody respectable has said that AGI will be achieved in the next 5 or even 500 years.

Eliezer Yudkowsky should be respected in the field of AI. Agree or disagree with his level of concern over AI risk, he has made fairly accurate predictions so far. Last I heard, he was predicting that we could be as little as 10-15 years from the level of AI development that he considers to be an extinctions level risk. Again, there's plenty of different conclusions that can be made on the risk levels but that doesn'…

No one should respect that blowhard. Please point me to the specifically accurate predictions he has made so far.

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

#158

Post by theGnuMe »

nojvek wrote: post #126
deelowe wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If agi is possible, whomever creates it is going to do their damnest to make sure no one else finds out for as long as possible.

AGI is very possible. ASI (artificial super intelligence) is gonna come pretty quick after AGI. The question is when and who will distribute it widely to everyone. When we have AGI, we will find it out pretty quickly since whoever gets there first wants the most money and control they can.

This is nonsense.

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

#159

Post by voitvoder »

tasty_freeze wrote: post #103

One thing that makes no sense about Sam Altman hiding the Q* progress from the board is that Ilya Sutskever was part of the board too. As he is the technical lead and Altman isn't technical at all, how would it be a secret from Sutskever? NB: I know nothing about these people and don't track it, but my consistency check failed on this claim based on the flood of news over the past week.

It obviously wouldn't. What makes the most sense is that Altman's ousting was orchestrated by Sutskever but he is too important to let go to another project or he would already be gone.

Would have hardly been a shock that "after an exhaustive search for the next CEO, we have decided the most capable person to replace the interim CEO is low and behold Ilya Sutskever."

The fact even I know Sutskever signed the petition is just another aspect of this Shakespearean drama, Sutskever doth protest too much me thinks.

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

#160

Post by voitvoder »

yowlingcat wrote: post #157
_heimdall wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eliezer Yudkowsky should be respected in the field of AI. Agree or disagree with his level of concern over AI risk, he has made fairly accurate predictions so far. Last I heard, he was predicting that we could be as little as 10-15 years from the level of AI development that he considers to be an extinctions level risk. Again, there's plenty of different conclusions that can be made on the risk levels but that doesn'…

No one should respect that blowhard. Please point me to the specifically accurate predictions he has made so far.

Are you saying statements like "...and then AI takes over the whole galaxy and comes back to eats us!" doesn't sound rational?

He is basically the next generation's Ray Kurzweil but instead of AI granting us biological immortality now AI is going to cause mass extinction.

Instead of uploading consciousness to some digital nirvana we get the slightest variation on The Matrix. "And then it takes over the galaxy and uses the atoms in our bodies for batteries!!"

With the way AI captures the imagination we can't but help take things to irrational extremes.

Post reply on HN