How do you automate experimentation? Doubtlessly, AI can iterate at superhuman speeds in the domains of thought and design: Software, mathematical proofs, literature search. But in the realm of experiment? Alas it is the lack of a body that constrains it. Rather than transcendence what AI requires is immanence. In the human flesh may we find the godhead living among men. Let the laboratories, warehouses, and factorie…
Discovery Loop
141–150 of 630 posts
Re: Discovery Loop
#142From Jeff's twitter post: > Our general approach is to automate the experimental loop. We think this approach is broadly applicable across many different fields of science and engineering. We’ll initially focus on ML research and engineering, but believe the approach can help with important subproblems in nearly every one of the fourteen NAE Grand Challenge problems. We think doing this well requires strong expertise…
The solution to most of these problems lies in policy, not in new tech advancements. Maybe if our biggest companies did something other than suck up to science denying wackos, some progress could be made in these areas.
Policy and funding. One of which will be sucked up by this venture.
Re: Discovery Loop
#143To be honest, this feels more like a lifestyle business (aka hobby) than a startup. They truly deserve it, but I don't expect a huge success as a business. That said, I hope they write cool papers with various peers across the industry without worrying too much about the competing dynamics. That'd be a blessing for humanity, and good for their spirit.
A public benefit corp shouldn’t be a start up. The primary goal of a start up is to grow as quickly as possible which is rarely benefits the public. Very silly to call every non start up a lifestyle business. It’s just a business. Start up are the weird thing that almost always an obscene waste of time and money, but sometime creates google.
> The primary goal of a start up is to grow as quickly as possible which is rarely benefits the public.
Why is that so? Fast growth, when achieved honestly, is a result of solving user pain that others haven't. Maybe you think so because users != the public, but I think in totality the public is a collection of users who all have needs they want met.
Re: Discovery Loop
#144The job req has "Recursive Self-Improvement" as one of the "area of expertise" checkboxes lol
It is targeted at a dozen or so people at OpenAI and Anthropic, not you or me.
Re: Discovery Loop
#145Note that Jeff and crew have cleverly structured their company to avoid problematic uses of AI (e.g., weapons or tracking humans). I suspect that many top researchers will want to work there for this reason, and to work with other top researchers who have a history of delivering results.
There's this somewhere on that page: > securing cyberspace, which has clear military implications, at least in today's age.
Do you believe that securing cyberspace is problematic solely because it has military implications? I mean, everything has military implications. That fact doesn't imply, however, that those things are bad for society.
Re: Discovery Loop
#146To be honest, this feels more like a lifestyle business (aka hobby) than a startup. They truly deserve it, but I don't expect a huge success as a business. That said, I hope they write cool papers with various peers across the industry without worrying too much about the competing dynamics. That'd be a blessing for humanity, and good for their spirit.
I don't see how not? A theoretical physicist can do all the thinking they want but if they can't test an idea against nature it's not super useful.
Re: Discovery Loop
#147How do you automate experimentation? Doubtlessly, AI can iterate at superhuman speeds in the domains of thought and design: Software, mathematical proofs, literature search. But in the realm of experiment? Alas it is the lack of a body that constrains it. Rather than transcendence what AI requires is immanence. In the human flesh may we find the godhead living among men. Let the laboratories, warehouses, and factorie…
You're halfway there, but the only impediment isn't on the side of the researchers. Many of these topics they're trying to solve involve human subject research. Even with tireless embodied researchers who work around the clock and don't require breaks, you can't make the thing you're studying happen faster. The biggest reason we use poor proxy measures for things like longevity and mortality research is the simple impracticality of finding two groups of randomly selected people, ensuring you can control their entire lives for 60 years, the only difference between them is one variable, and see who lives longer. Putting aside the ethics, even if you could find willing subjects and actually control their entire lives to that extent, it would still take 60 years to gather the data you need. It doesn't make any difference whether robots or humans are running the program.
One of my favorite books from the past few decades is The Extravagant Universe, written by one of the astronomers who helped discover dark energy and develop the current most-accepted model of cosmology. I love this book because of the emphasis on physical process in astronomy. Part of the reason it took decades to study this problem is they need to collect data from supernovae. Those only happen so often in places we're looking. You can't automate alignment of the heavens. It happens when it happens.
Re: Discovery Loop
#148To be honest, this feels more like a lifestyle business (aka hobby) than a startup. They truly deserve it, but I don't expect a huge success as a business. That said, I hope they write cool papers with various peers across the industry without worrying too much about the competing dynamics. That'd be a blessing for humanity, and good for their spirit.
A public benefit corp shouldn’t be a start up. The primary goal of a start up is to grow as quickly as possible which is rarely benefits the public. Very silly to call every non start up a lifestyle business. It’s just a business. Start up are the weird thing that almost always an obscene waste of time and money, but sometime creates google.
A PBC is not a charity or a non-profit. PBCs are for-profit businesses with the goal of making money. In day-to-day business they're indistinguishable with other for-profit corporations, including fundraising and investment. The only real practical difference is that they give directors a little more leeway in their fiduciary duties to say "no" to doing evil things.
The advantage to a PBC is protecting founders from a serious problem with standard corporations: you might bring on investors who could subsequently demand you pollute, exploit people, and/or do other immoral activities for profit. You don't have to do these things to grow a business quickly.
Re: Discovery Loop
#149Jeff Dean, Sanjay, et al have achieved so much. I'm very happy for them. Truly deserving. Sometimes I couldn't resist wondering if I'll ever do work that has a tenth of the impact of theirs.
Gemini has done absolutely nothing for me. I can't even shut off the navigation feature on my phone using only hands free, when I get close to my destination. I have to take my eyes off the road, look down, and tap to exit. Google's advanced AI cannot even exit a mobile app.
Antigravity + Gemini Pro absolutely RIPS through fullstack react + react-native apps / systems. I pay ~$20/month and I basically don't have to do my real work anymore. My time is freed up to learn systems programming and blender.
Re: Discovery Loop
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
LLM coding isn't even close to plateauing. Right now, the major players are in a consolidation step, focusing more on economic efficiency but still not at the point where we're ready to start burning models to hardware and freezing the line. They are straddling the line between pushing it forward, and justifying the business case. It's hard to do both at the same time.
LLMs are hungry for tokens. Every day I see more startups claiming token usage at 50-100k per month. You can always brute-force your way in - just see HuggingFace's recent attacks. If throwing more money at inference while accumulating compounding technical debt is the new norm, then we are not solving the problem, and the solution space is already covered. Perhaps there are marginal gains at the expense of quadrilli…
> You can always brute-force your way in
This is such unbelievable revisionism! Can you imagine in 2022 saying "Oh of course you can brute force your way to AGI if you spend enough money per month". Nobody thought that! Come on!