Live data from Hacker News

AI 2040: Plan A

ai-2040.com

351–360 of 567 posts

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#351
post #347
post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This feels like a semantic disagreement to me? If an LLM got to an acceptable end result code-wise, what would you call the process that took place to get it there?

I'd call it what it is: a good enough stochastic search result extracted from the model's embedding space.

Is an implication of this that models are incapable of producing entirely novel code?

Also, not to get too reductionist about this, but what do you posit is special about what is happening when humans think? Intelligence is hard to define so clearly, I reckon.

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#352
post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> reading code, understanding, hypothesizing, comparing, ...identifying problems and proposing solutions, and more Except it did none of those things, really, because that's not how it works. This might help, it's a good writeup: https://www.0xkato.xyz/how-llms-actually-work/ We know how these machines work, it's not mysterious, there's nothing "extra" happening.

> We know how these machines work, it's not mysterious, there's nothing "extra" happening. Lol. This is more telling about your implicit unscientific preconceptions that you wanted to reveal. Of course there isn't anything "extra". Where do you think intelligence comes from, some mysterious realm? It's physical, computational. The fact that at the bottom we produced it via matrix multiplication is irrelevant. Maybe h…

> Where do you think intelligence comes from, some mysterious realm? It's physical, computational.

Well, no. I don't think it comes from some mysterious realm. I think that which is not physical does not exist [edit: and if you like I'll follow that one right down the rabbit hole--continuity and infinity are useful delusions]. But that eminently does not mean we know what intelligence is, let alone how to build one.

> The fact that at the bottom we produced it via matrix multiplication is irrelevant.

Huh? We don't even know what "it" is. How can you say you produced it?

> a machine performs tasks that require flexible analytical and cognitive skills

You see that, I see a lucky stochastic search result. Don't underestimate the "creativity" of random algorithms! They can do some wild shit! This is nothing new, we've been playing with these toys for like 70 fucking years. It's only recently that they started spewing words and everyone lost their minds over it.

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#353
post #349
post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now show me a writeup that explains how the brain works so I can understand why the brain does those things. > We know how these machines work, it's not mysterious, there's nothing "extra" happening. It sounds like you're saying "We don't know how brains work, they're mysterious, there's something 'extra' happening", and using that as justification for why you're saying a computer, an AI, can't "understand". I think…

I'm not claiming there's something "extra" happening in brains. Merely that we just don't know how they work well enough to use that knowledge to do engineering. Neural nets are quite unlike brains, despite the unfortunate shared vocabulary. OTOH we do know how neural nets work, and they definitely don't do "thinking" or "reasoning".

First you have to give a specific definition for thinking and reasoning before determining if they definitely do or don't do such a thing.

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#354

This is religious fervor folks, as AI 2027 was. I grew up in evangelical christianity, and to them the end of the world is just around the corner, the same way it has been since I was a small child and likely will be when we are all gone. This isn't science. This isn't hypothesis experiment record results. This is very expensive astrology, shiny rock collecting, ritualistic meaning-making and self-justification. Yall…

It's nuts how well "Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People"[0] aged. That talk is a decade old by now and still hits just as hard as it did back then, despite the incredible advances made in AI in the meantime. [0] https://idlewords.com/talks/superintelligence.htm

and upon rereading completely holds up technically we are still passing in massive data into simple networks giving no opportunity for introspection or recursive self improvement.

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#355

This is religious fervor folks, as AI 2027 was. I grew up in evangelical christianity, and to them the end of the world is just around the corner, the same way it has been since I was a small child and likely will be when we are all gone. This isn't science. This isn't hypothesis experiment record results. This is very expensive astrology, shiny rock collecting, ritualistic meaning-making and self-justification. Yall…

>Reject the false and self-serving narratives that empathy doesn't matter, that altruism isn't "effective". You can change a person's whole life in a moment. You can change more people’s lives, more substantially, if you donate effectively. Effective altruism started out as (and the majority of effective altruist financing is committed to) an effort to rationalize what has historically been a very emotionally driven…

But in the public image, the EA community is synonymous with doubling down on AI / AGI to the exclusion of the other projects.

OpenPhil changing its name to Coefficient Giving, 80000 hours and bluedot and (to a lesser extent) CFAR dropping other initiatives and switching to AGI promotion… to my knowledge GiveWell is the only other big name that continues to advance other initiatives. Then look at figureheads like SBF committing fraud and begging for a pardon from the architects of the USAID shutdown… We begin to paint a picture of a community that’s (by and large) abandoned its principles for power.

I know the view from the inside is more nuanced, but I think it’s a reasonable association for random members of the public to make.

My critique of the EA community is that it’s myopic and unregularized. If you really think AGI is make-or-break for civilization, it’s completely rational to deprioritize side bets.

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#356
I personally find AI doomsday preaching incredibly arrogant. You think that we will create super intelligence, something that will exponentially get smarter, and the thing it will do is... end humans? Why wouldn't it just find solutions to problems we struggle with? Also people don't live to work, its asinine to argue AI replacing jobs is the problem, obviously the problem is the gains being concentrated higher up. Another thing is, we argue AI needs to be maximally useful to everyone in the world, and the argument to do that is government control??? I would rather push for AI to be superintelligent faster than any one human can control it. Frankly human controlled superintelligence is likely a worse outcome then uncontrolled superintelligence, at the very least there is no guarantee one will be better than the other.

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#357
post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not claiming there's something "extra" happening in brains. Merely that we just don't know how they work well enough to use that knowledge to do engineering. Neural nets are quite unlike brains, despite the unfortunate shared vocabulary. OTOH we do know how neural nets work, and they definitely don't do "thinking" or "reasoning".

First you have to give a specific definition for thinking and reasoning before determining if they definitely do or don't do such a thing.

Fair enough, I should have phrased that less strongly. Until you show that your neural net does "thinking" or "reasoning" I'll disregard that and prefer to think about it in terms of what we actually know neural nets actually do. Does that work?

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you deeply suffer from normalcy bias. Not believing that AGI is possible is irrational and unscientific imo, the human brain exists, it is not made of magic, it can reproduced. It is as simple as that. We can debate about timelines, architectures that may lead us there, etc... You can even talk all day long about definitions of AGI, and people waste their time doing that. But saying that the human brain cognitive…

> Not believing that AGI is possible One can simultaneously believe AGI is possible, be only modestly sceptical that our current methods are likely to yield it in the near term and still find the religious ferocity enveloping its discussion silly. > saying that the human brain cognitive capabilities cannot be reproduced on other types of substrates is stupid at this point Straw man. Nobody argued this. The discussion…

In particular, I just don’t buy into the “left behind unless” framework.

Perhaps Anthropic will create God in the Machine. Not foreclosing on that. But will it matter so much who was fucking around with Opus five e-folding times ago?

Either ClauDeus is benevolent and lifts you up (not left behind) or it isn’t, or not to you, and you are culled by a drone (left behind regardless).

Serenity Prayer time.

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human cloning and genetic editing isn't stalled because we agreed it's unethical. It's not pursued because at the current level of advancements, it's pretty useless. The things we can do there are niche. It's easy to ban something that's not very useful. If we had a way to make gene edited humans a lot smarter, a lot stronger or live a lot longer? Or a way to quick-grow human bodies to adulthood in a couple years? Ca…

It's not useless. We know enough about DNA to be able to make better humans, but people get real squickly real fast when you talk about that. It has stalled because of that. If we go in and just check the DNA for Downs or Parkinson's, we can't have a conversation on aborting the foetus without religious beliefs coming into play. Designer children aren't a thing, despite the ability to edit DNA to do specific things.…

> If we go in and just check the DNA for Downs or Parkinson's

You should consider reading the wikipedia page about Parkinson’s disease.

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#360
post #336
post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a vast gulf between theoretically possible and technologically feasible. If you can’t provide a realistic path to achieve something, you’re asking people to believe in science fiction. You could tell me that a rock’s molecules are comprised of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Blood is also entirely protons, neutrons, and electrons; so theoretically, one could rearrange stone into blood. But without an actua…

I used the example of 1G constant acceleration space flight in another thread which got downvoted to oblivion, but I think it's a good one. That's a technology we know how to build. We just need superconducting electronics and miniaturized fusion reactors, or a ship which is built like Project Orion to use nuclear bombs for propulsion. Now write down a blueprint for superintelligence. So I've given you two impossible…

As early as the late 19th century, Louis Pasteur’s work had inspired a belief in the scientific community that it must, in principle be possible to selectively exterminate bacteria. The German physician Paul Ehrlich expounded on this in greatest detail in 1907 when he described his “magic bullet” (or Zauberkugel) theory for effectively targeting pathogens without harming the human host, similar to the immune system.

However, if you had had demanded someone for a blueprint in 1925 of how to design such a magic bullet, especially a magic bullet that targeted virtually all forms of bacteria, it would have sounded ludicrous. Yet, 20 years later, the world was manufacturing 6-7 trillion units of penicillin a year, capable of treating 3-6 million people. And that’s in spite of the fact that Fleming’s work sat mostly untouched for a decade before Howard Florey and Ernst Chain seriously set about to isolate and purify the substance.

You can quibble and say that penicillin was discovered, not designed, which is certainly true. But I would ask you to consider, does current AI development look more like design or discovery? Does it look more like analytical engineering or evolutionary selection? I would say on both counts the latter, in which case, we should prepare to be surprised how long it might take to make revolutionary advances. And that’s on both sides of the ledger, we might find ourselves stuck in the current paradigm for a long time. But, we might not be.

Post reply on HN