> we may have AI that is more capable than everyone in only 1-2 years There's no evidence this will be the case...
What would you consider such evidence to look like?
The Adolescence of Technology
51–60 of 159 posts
Re: The Adolescence of Technology
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was asking it to see if the wikisource tools are working by looking up a Bible quote. There was no ambiguity about the task itself; what I'm saying is that Claude 'knows' a bunch of things (the Bible has different translations) that it doesn't operationalize when doing a task--issues that would would be glaringly obvious to a human who knows the same things
Maybe I'm missing the point as well, but what did it do wrong? It seemed like you wanted to see if a search tool was working. It looked to see. It tried one search using on data source KJ and found no matches. Next question would be is the quote not in there, is there a mis-remembering of the quote or is their something wrong with the data source. It tries an easier to match quote and finds nothing, which it finds od…
What I was expecting is that it would pull up the KJV using the results returned from the wiki_source_search tool instead of going for a totally different translation and then doing a text match for a KJV quote
Re: The Adolescence of Technology
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
Software is more amenable to LLMs because there is a rich source of highly relevant training data that corresponds directly to the building blocks of software, and the "correctness" of software is quasi-self-verifiable. This isn't true for pretty much anything else.
The more verifiable the domain the better suited. We see similar reports of benefits from advanced mathematics research from Terrence Tao, granted some reports seem to amount to very few knew some data existed that was relevant to the proof, but the LLM had it in its training corpus. Still, verifiably correct domains are well-suited. So the concept formal verification is as relevant as ever, and when building interco…
> The more verifiable the domain the better suited.
Absolutely. It's also worth noting that in the case of Tao's work, the LLM was producing Lean and Python code.
Re: The Adolescence of Technology
#54This is obviously bullshit. If he were really worried about the things he says he is, he'd put the brakes on his company, or would never have started it in the first place.
Re: The Adolescence of Technology
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not with respect to this particular type of failure.
Not sure what you mean. https://claude.ai/share/8368a541-57d3-4139-88b5-2b007c47c690 Claude finds it's in the KJV first thing.
> Not sure what you mean.
I'm talking about this type of failure, not this exact specific example.
Re: The Adolescence of Technology
#56Initial thought about 1/5th of the way through: Wow, that's a lot of em-dashes! i wonder how much of this he actually wrote? Edit: Okay, section 3 has some interesting bits in it. It reminds me of all those gun start-ups in Texas that use gyros and image recognition to turn a C- shooter into an A- shooter. They all typically get bought up quite fast by the government and the tech shushed away. But the ideas are just…
If AI makes humans economically irrelevant, nuclear deterrents may no longer be effective even if they remain mechanically intact. Would governments even try to keep their people and cities intact once they are useless?
Re: The Adolescence of Technology
#57This is obviously bullshit. If he were really worried about the things he says he is, he'd put the brakes on his company, or would never have started it in the first place.
So if someone (actually, practically everyone) who runs an AI company says AI is dangerous, it's bullshit. If someone who is holding NVDA put options says it, they're talking their book. If someone whose job is threatened by AI says it, it's cope. If someone who doesn't use AI says it, it's fear of change. Is there someone in particular you want to hear it from, or are you completely immune to argument?
Re: The Adolescence of Technology
#58It's interesting just how many opinions Amodei shares with AI 2027's authors despite coming from a pretty different context.
- Prediction of exponential AI research feedback loops (AI coding speeding up AI R&D) which Amodei says is already starting today
- AI being a race between democracies and autocracies with winner-takes-all dynamics, with compute being crucial in this race and global slowdown being infeasible
- Mention of bioweapons and mirror life in particular being a big concern
- The belief that AI takeoff would be fast and broad enough to cause irreplaceable job losses rather than being a repeat of past disruptions (although this essay seems to be markedly more pessimistic than AI 2027 with regard to inequality after said job losses)
- Powerful AI in next few years, perhaps as early as 2027
I wonder if either work influenced the other in any way or is this just a case of "great minds think alike"?
Re: The Adolescence of Technology
#59I fear that when this technology grows up it will first be in the hands of the propagandists and war mongers. The rest of use won't stand a chance against the real-time propaganda streams convincing us why "we" needs to attack the bad guy country of the month die so we can take their stuff. Or maybe we'll be so sedated by genAI, 24/7, always new, personally customized entertainment that we won't care.
It's already there. Propaganda was one of the first uses of LLMs, and before that, they used humans.
Now the humans can be used in the meat grinder. No job losses, just different kind of jobs. Am I doing this right?
Re: The Adolescence of Technology
#60This is obviously bullshit. If he were really worried about the things he says he is, he'd put the brakes on his company, or would never have started it in the first place.
So if someone (actually, practically everyone) who runs an AI company says AI is dangerous, it's bullshit. If someone who is holding NVDA put options says it, they're talking their book. If someone whose job is threatened by AI says it, it's cope. If someone who doesn't use AI says it, it's fear of change. Is there someone in particular you want to hear it from, or are you completely immune to argument?
I actually do believe that AI is dangerous, though for different reasons than the ones he focuses on. But I don't think he really believes it, since if he did, he wouldn't be spending billions to bring it into existence.