Live data from Hacker News

The Intelligence Age

ia.samaltman.com

271–280 of 447 posts

Re: The Intelligence Age

#271
post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure you know that people in the AI community have been predicting big things ever since, I don't know, the 1970s? It's only 10 years away again. This time it's for real, right?

Alchemists predicted the transmutation of metals into gold for centuries, and on a sunny day in the 20th century, it arrived (a bit radioactive, but still). Unless the human brain is made of some sacred substance, the worst-case scenario is that we will extrapolate current scanning methods into the future and run the scanned model in silica. I'm not recommending this "just for fun," but the laws of physics don't forb…

If you are comparing AI to alchemy, a subject that after thousands of years still isn’t delivering on its promises (even with the assistance of modern technological magic), then surely you can see how that’s something of a self-own.

Re: The Intelligence Age

#273
post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

Sam’s ambitions are way beyond “salary”.

It's a quote from Upton Sinclair from an era where you generally had to have a profitable business and employees before you had investors.

Re: The Intelligence Age

#274
> a defining characteristic of the Intelligence Age will be massive prosperity

That's the sales pitch, that this will benefit all.

I'm very pro-AI, but here's the only prediction for the future I would ever make: AI will accelerate, not minimize, inequality and thus injustice, because it removes the organizational limits previously imposed by bureaucracy/coordination costs of humans.

It's not AI's fault. It's not because people are evil or weak or mean, but because the system already does so, and the system has only been constrained by inability to scale people in organizations, which is now relieved by AI.

Virtually all the advances in technology and civilization have been aimed at people capturing resources, people, and value, and recent advances have only accelerated that trend. Broader distributions of value are incidental.

Yes, the U.S. had a middle class after the war, and yes, China has lifted rural people out of technical poverty. But those are the exceptions against the background of consolidation of wealth and power world wide. Not through ideology or avarice but through law and technology extending the reach of agency by amplifying transaction cost differences in market power, information asymmetry and risk burdens. The only thing that stops this is disasters like war and environmental collapse, and it's only slowed by recalcitrance of people.

E.g., now we are at a point were people's economic and online activity is pervasively tracked, but it's impossible to determine who's the owner of the vast majority of assets. That creates massive scale for getting customers, but impedes legal responsibility. Nothing in economic/market theory says that's how it should be; but transaction cost economics does make clear that the asymmetry can and will be exploited, so organizations will capture governance to do so.

It's not AI's job nor even AI's focus to correct injustice, and you can't blame AI for the damage it does. But like nuclear weapons, cluster munitions, party politics, (even software waivers of liability) etc., it creates moral hazards far beyond the ability of culture to accommodate.

(Don't get me started on how blockchain's promise of smart contracts scaling to address transaction risks has devolved into proliferating fraud schemes.)

Re: The Intelligence Age

#275
post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Right. Certain things cannot be proven until they arrive. Maybe sama is right, maybe not. But his certainty is misleading.

Re: The Intelligence Age

#276
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we will solve the remaining problems This is the part that really gets me. This is a thing that you say to your team, and a thing you say to your investors, but this isn't a thing that you can actually believe with certainty is it?

you need some amount of irrational definite optimism + knowing things others dont to be a good founder. that kind of reality distortion field is why sam is sam and we are here debating phrases on an orange website.

Related, I tongue-in-cheek believe that something analogous to the actual SCP object for a "reality distortion field" may in fact exist. There is zero good explanation for "Teflon Don" or the North Carolina Lieutenant Governor getting away with all the stuff they do while Al Franken got politically crucified.

Re: The Intelligence Age

#277

> 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…

As large as the absolute largest models are today, they are still microscopic compared to our brains. A 1.7T param model would only store an actual total of about 850 GB if fully saturated (4 bits of information per weight estimated for bf16 transformers), a lot less than a human brain with 150T synapses running in full analog precision. We need to scale the current gen of models at least another 10-100x to even reac…

Comparing a human brain in these terms makes it incredibly obvious how inefficient the human brain actually is. A 1.7T model can answer questions about practically anything. You say a human brain has 150T params. So what? It struggles to give masterful answers in even 1 domain, let alone dozens/hundreds. We need to stop comparing parameters and synapses as if they actually matter, because AFAIK, they really don't.

Re: The Intelligence Age

#278

OAI's achievements are amazing. But here's a bit of a skeptical take: cheap human-style intelligence won't have a huge impact because such intelligence isn't really a bottleneck today. It's a cliche that the brightest minds of the age are dedicated to selling more ads or shuffling stock ownership around at high velocity. Anyone who's worked at a big tech company knows the enormous ratio of talent to real engineering…

And also that is why something which is so foundational should be allowed to spread out to all humans which means running local llm models on our machines instead of paying one or two companies to use it. Anthropic, open AI should not become the ones humanity has to go to to get such a resource. We didn't have fire as a service for humanity to master fire.

Re: The Intelligence Age

#279
post #189

Somehow I read through this without actually looking at the domain name of the page. I thought to my self "Wow, this person is living in a fantasy world." Then I saw the authors name. I think I'll stand by my initial impression.

Also that is why we should have some of these foundational models broken down and run at the per person level as a local large language model instead of paying some corporation to get access to it. We didn't have fire as a service back in the day and that is why humanity flourished.

Re: The Intelligence Age

#280
post #271
post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alchemists predicted the transmutation of metals into gold for centuries, and on a sunny day in the 20th century, it arrived (a bit radioactive, but still). Unless the human brain is made of some sacred substance, the worst-case scenario is that we will extrapolate current scanning methods into the future and run the scanned model in silica. I'm not recommending this "just for fun," but the laws of physics don't forb…

If you are comparing AI to alchemy, a subject that after thousands of years still isn’t delivering on its promises (even with the assistance of modern technological magic), then surely you can see how that’s something of a self-own.

The transmutation of uranium into plutonium and the synthesis of medically useful isotopes proceeds successfully.
Post reply on HN