Q* honestly sounds like something in one of those threads on an imageboard.
Please ignore the deluge of complete nonsense about Q*
171–180 of 208 posts
Re: Please ignore the deluge of complete nonsense about Q*
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
He did, he made a public Twitter post saying he regretted his original actions and wanted the company back together now.
Re: Please ignore the deluge of complete nonsense about Q*
#173Earlier 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
LLMs are building blocks on the path to AGI. Can you even ask your cat any question you can ask chatGPT?
People dismiss LLMs because they are not embodied, and lack continuous training. That is to come.
Re: Please ignore the deluge of complete nonsense about Q*
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
As the discussion shows, the choice of null hypotheses is debated. Fortunately, null hypothesis statistical testing is not the only scientific framework for hypothesis testing.
Re: Please ignore the deluge of complete nonsense about Q*
#175I 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.”
[deleted]
Re: Please ignore the deluge of complete nonsense about Q*
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't heard any real details of what Q* is supposed to be; I assumed it's related to reinforcement learning. I guess it's possible the heuristic in A* was replaced with a neural network value function. I'm not sure how that could lead to a breakthrough in language models though.
The star in A* doesn't have anything to do with the algorithm itself. It just means optimal. Q star would mean optimal Q. If that is even what the star is referring to. There is still no way to know if the Q is the quality factor, query value, question, something else, or just a placeholder name that doesn't reference its structure at all
[deleted]
Re: Please ignore the deluge of complete nonsense about Q*
#177So Q* is just A* for neural networks?
It is probably A* search + Q-learning
Re: Please ignore the deluge of complete nonsense about Q*
#178LeCun is one of the rare voices of reason in the AI community, especially among the celebrities. He’s been consistently voicing realistic statements with regards to AGI (he doesn’t believe it’s a thing), AI safety and doomerism, limitations of LLMs, etc.
A year ago he said that language models would never be able to explain why if you move a table, the bottle on top of it would not fall. He definitely had no idea what was coming with LLMs. And now he is arrogant enough to say "we all knew what capabilities LLMs would have". He has no intelectual humility or honesty at all. I at least admit openly that language models blew my mind. Lost respect for his opinions massiv…
Can you cite a reference for that quote? I can’t find it. He has definitely underestimated language model capabilities but he has been mostly right on the “language models can’t plan” stuff. He has been consistent and correct about his criticism about auto regressive model as well.
Re: Please ignore the deluge of complete nonsense about Q*
#179I took an AI course in college back around 2015. Just a bit before AlphaGo. One project was to implement a simple Q-learning action/value system to play simple games, like Pacman. The crypto-bros-turned-AGI-experts on twitter are spouting the most uninformed, misguided garbage about this whole thing, it's quite amazing to watch. And I'm not saying that I am smart or an expert about Q* because I took an introductory c…
> The crypto-bros-turned-AGI-experts on twitter are spouting the most uninformed, misguided garbage about this whole thing, it's quite amazing to watch. After the LK-99 debacle where Twitter "confirmed" its superconductivity and breathless sheisters heralded the dawn of a new age, my new policy is "inverse Twitter": if Twitter thinks something is a big deal, then it's more than than 50% likely that it's unsubstantiat…
If you were selective on Twitter, one of the best guys was saying it's all over about 24 hours after the hype started and way before the general press got there. The trick is to try to filter the experts from the fools.
Re: Please ignore the deluge of complete nonsense about Q*
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
He did, he made a public Twitter post saying he regretted his original actions and wanted the company back together now.
which is ridiculous washing of his hands. he was on the board as chairman. he could have issued a dissenting statement on Friday, etc. that tweet that late was at best very weird and useless