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

The Intelligence Age

ia.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 447 posts

Re: The Intelligence Age

#191

Post by philosopher1234 »

screye wrote: post #118

Question for active professionals during the Moore's law era of computing. Back then, were executives writing such grand proclamations about the future ? In my experience, when things are working, executives are quiet. The outcomes speak for themselves. Thankfully, we have a recent point of reference. The pioneers of internet & computing's 1st wave transformed civilization. Did they spend years saber rattling about h…

That’s a bit funny, Moores law itself is an example of an executive being loud and making a grand proclamation

Re: The Intelligence Age

#192

Post by mu53 »

sharkjacobs wrote: post #58

> It is possible that we will have superintelligence in a few thousand days (!) "a few thousand days" is such a funny and fascinating way to say "about a decade" Superficially, reframing it as "days" not "years" is a classic marketing psychology trick, i.e. 99 cents versus a dollar, but I think the more interesting thing is just the way it defamiliarizes the span. A decade means something, but "a few thousand days" f…

I am convinced that these many of these proclamations and scary AI videos are more of a marketing gimic for people to get excited and fund more AI.

AI is prohibitively expensive. LLMs can take millions to train, and for Chatgpt 4, I wouldn't be surprised if the figure was in .5b to 2b range for compute resources alone. ChatGPT struggles for profitability due to high ongoing requirements for GPUs.

LLMs were a huge breakthrough. Gaining more funding and making experimentation cheaper will make the next breakthrough come sooner. Profitability will also come sooner.

We just don't know the timelines we are considering about changing.

Re: The Intelligence Age

#193

Post by lordnacho »

falcor84 wrote: post #141

> Our children will have virtual tutors who can provide personalized instruction in any subject, in any language, and at whatever pace they need. This is one of those few cases where I'm actually more bullish than Altman. I don't need to wait for my kids to have it, but rather I personally am already using this daily. My regular thing is to upload a book/article(s) into the context of a Claude project and then chat w…

One thing I was thinking about was live translation. We gotta be near the stage where I can take earbuds with me to Spain and hear what the locals are saying in English? There's already apps that are pretty good at "talk to it and it hears the words, prints them, and prints the translation", so it would seem to be close?

Re: The Intelligence Age

#194

Post by uludag »

codingwagie wrote: post #32

“This may turn out to be the most consequential fact about all of history so far. It is possible that we will have superintelligence in a few thousand days (!); it may take longer, but I’m confident we’ll get there.” I am a believer that people like sam are not lying. Anyone using these models daily probably believes the same. The o1 model, if prompted correctly, can architect a code base in a way that my decade+ of…

Interesting observation. My experience with o1 has been much more mundane. Sometimes I get the response I wanted, sometime it hallucinates, often times it writes buggy code. I've been experiencing this since ChatGPT was first released.

Re: The Intelligence Age

#195

Post by api »

gwern wrote: post #150

> If we want to put AI into the hands of as many people as possible, we need to drive down the cost of compute and make it abundant (which requires lots of energy and chips). If we don’t build enough infrastructure, AI will be a very limited resource that wars get fought over and that becomes mostly a tool for rich people. Translation for the rest of us: "we need to fully privatize the OA subsidiary and turn it into…

> put AI into the hands of as many people as possible

... by establishing regulatory moats to prevent competition and limit or outlaw actually-open AI?

Re: The Intelligence Age

#197

Post by jagrsw »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #34
sharkjacobs wrote: post #20

> Deep learning works, and we will solve the remaining problems. We can say a lot of things about what may happen next, but the main one is that AI is going to get better with scale I'm not an AI skeptic at all, I use llms all the time, and find them very useful. But stuff like this makes me very skeptical of the people who are making and selling AI. It seems like there was a really sweet spot wrt the capabilities AI…

Even "we will solve the remaining problems" is... perhaps unduly optimistic. At a minimum, we could ask for the evidence.

I'm not here to defend sama, but certain things cannot be proven until they arrive - they can only be extrapolated from existing observations and theoretical limits.

Imagine the Uranium Committee of early 40's, where Szilard and others were babbling about 10kg of some magical metal exploding briefly with the power of a sun, with the best evidence being some funky trail in an alcohol vapor chamber.

Maybe sama is right, maybe not, but the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Re: The Intelligence Age

#198

Post by teekert »

“If we don’t build enough infrastructure, AI will be a very limited resource that wars get fought over and that becomes mostly a tool for rich people.”

… This, and nothing about the democratizing effect of “open source AI” (Yes we still need to define what that is!).

I don’t want Sam as the thought leader of AI. I even prefer Zuck.

Are there any thought leaders that are really about democratization and local foss AI on open hardware? Or do they always follow (or step into the light) after the big moneymakers have had their moment? Who can we start watching? The Linus, the RMS, the Wozniak’s of AI. Who are they?

Re: The Intelligence Age

#199

Post by kulahan »

peppermill wrote: post #173
gwern wrote: post #150

> If we want to put AI into the hands of as many people as possible, we need to drive down the cost of compute and make it abundant (which requires lots of energy and chips). If we don’t build enough infrastructure, AI will be a very limited resource that wars get fought over and that becomes mostly a tool for rich people. Translation for the rest of us: "we need to fully privatize the OA subsidiary and turn it into…

It's amazing how he can imagine wars being fought over AI but not wars being fought over resources needed to "build enough infrastructure."

Taking it a step further, building that infrastructure may contribute somewhat directly to limiting the other resources actual wars are being fought over.

This man needs to get out of his own head.

Re: The Intelligence Age

#200

Post by uludag »

> That’s really it; humanity discovered an algorithm that could really, truly learn any distribution of data (or really, the underlying “rules” that produce any distribution of data)

So because we have an algorithm to learn any distribution of data, we are now on the verge of the Intelligence Age utopia? What if it just entrenches us in a world built off of the data it was trained on?

Post reply on HN