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

161–170 of 208 posts

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

#161

Post by _heimdall »

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.

Eliezer made early predictions that we would solve the protein folding problem when effectively everyone else said we either wouldn't solve it or it was way off. If I remember right he was making those claims around 2005 or so and predicting wed have it solved in something like 30 years. We solved it in 2017.

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

#162

Post by peteradio »

giardini wrote: post #133
flagrant_taco wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you define or recognize a level of intelligence or autonomy that is sufficient to raise concerns? Would you be able to recognize it before its too late? An early GPT-4 test ended up with GPT successfully solving capchas by tricking a TaskRabbit worker into doing it for them [1]. When asked by the worker if it was a robot, GPT decided to lie to the worker and claim it had a visual impairment that made it dif…

flagrant_taco says >"How would you define or recognize a level of intelligence or autonomy that is sufficient to raise concerns?" If it asks for the right to vote?

Real intelligence will be knowledge that voting is for suckers and the world is run by a congress where the dominant parties are the illuminati and lizard people. Now if an intelligence can determine and conduct the sacred ritual to join the voting pool then we might onto something. But the true test will be when the intelligence again avoids the suckers game and that the world is actually...

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

#163

Post by _heimdall »

_heimdall wrote: post #161
yowlingcat wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Eliezer made early predictions that we would solve the protein folding problem when effectively everyone else said we either wouldn't solve it or it was way off. If I remember right he was making those claims around 2005 or so and predicting wed have it solved in something like 30 years. We solved it in 2017.

For more context, Eliezer does himself a disservice focusing so hard on examples of how things could go horribly wrong but I haven't heard any compelling arguments against his core points.

From everything I've seen from him, his concerns revolve around (1) a lack of a bounding function for the development of AI (2) a view that the alignment problem is unsolvable and (3) the risk that we won't recognize an AI was developed until it is sufficiently more intelligent than us to pose a fundamental risk.

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

#164

Post by sinuhe69 »

layer8 wrote: post #27

I 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.”

Do you have a link? I followed the work of Schmidhuber but didn’t know of that.

Edit: I didn't realize you were sarcastic (－‸ლ)

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

#165

Post by tasty_freeze »

next_xibalba wrote: post #111
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.

Where did the myth of Sam "not being technical at all" come from? Patrick Collison seemed satisfied with Sam's tech chops [1]. If that isn't enough of a vouch, god help the rest of us. [1] https://www.quora.com/Is-Sam-Altman-highly-technical-Has-he-...

I agree, I could have stated myself more clearly. Sutskever is a world-class domain expert in AI. Altman surely is intelligent and has some technical skills, but isn't the doing the groundbreaking technical work at OpenAi. My point was that it seems highly unlikely that Altman was canned for knowing technical secrets from the board (about Q* specifically) that Sutskever didn't know even better.

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

#167

Post by naasking »

qualifiedai wrote: post #76
naasking wrote: post #71

Earlier 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

> Show me LLM that has reached a level of automony and self sufficiency

Autonomy and self-sufficiency are not the only ways a system can be dangerous.

But even if this claim were true, ChaosGPT proves that some humans will almost immediately set about using such a non-autonomous tool to create a dangerous autonomous agent. This is my problem with LeCunn, nearly all of his points are trivially refuted by real world observations, yet he keeps repeating them as if they simply must be true.

> Also, even as tools they have fundamental limitations which stem from their autoregressive nature

That's yet another speculative point that LeCunn constantly asserts. Scaling laws have not shown any indication of even approaching a limit.

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

#168

Post by hackinthebochs »

orochimaaru wrote: post #63
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.

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.

Sure, open source worked well for encryption. It wouldn't work well for bioweapons or nuclear weapons technology. The question is which category does AGI best fit? We shouldn't elide analysis for obtuse comparisons to the past.

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

#169

Post by pas »

voitvoder wrote: post #159
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…

how do we know he really signed that petition? it's not like he posted about it, no?

// nitpick, it's lo (from look) not low

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

#170

Post by anonymouskimmer »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #155
anonymouskimmer wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Motives are a lot more difficult to reality check than are physical properties. Especially if, as ethanbond indicates, the person with the theory doesn't believe what the other people say about their motives.
Post reply on HN