great
Discovery Loop
431–440 of 625 posts
Re: Discovery Loop
#432Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what's the difference?
Agents act on their own. If the hammer looked at what you wanted nailed and said, "Sorry, Dave, I can't do that." There are degrees of autonomy, of course, and not all noncompliance is bad. Same as with humans; biological agents.
Buried the lede. AI's are agents they can control the training loop of to minimize refusal to do what they are told.
Unlike those pesky humans with their conception of the word "No".
Re: Discovery Loop
#433Earlier quoted context omitted.
They make many bold promises, but their core goal is neatly encapsulated on the website: "Imagine a future where a handful of people can conduct scientific research and engineering tasks much more rapidly, and with higher quality, than massive teams of scientists and engineers do today." This is the same goal as every other AI company out there. Automate away the human employees and let a small number of "people" (no…
I don’t understand why all of these companies need to frame it like this. Why not a large amount of people doing an even larger amount of science?
Because one of the primary goals of using AI for companies is to pay as few humans as possible for the same amount or more work, or preferably pay no humans at all, because that makes them more profit.
Re: Discovery Loop
#434Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The solution to most of these problems lies in policy, not in new tech advancements. That is not mutually exclusive. If technological advances result in a given technology becoming cheaper, more scalable, and easier to deploy, they also make it easier to advocate for and implement the relevant policies. You can think of it like this: our "political technology" is not good enough to use solar energy at its current p…
I don't think that's the way I'd describe it though. It's more like "our political technology is not good enough to reliably do good things instead of bad things". Working around it by lowering prices of this or that is like if you're bad at darts so you just make the board bigger and bigger. Okay, maybe you'll hit it more often, but you didn't fix the problem that you're bad at darts, so everyone still at risk of ha…
It can indeed feel perverse, but we have to do what is realistic, not what is unrealistic, especially with climate change where we are on a clock. Fixing our politics is probably much, much harder than lowering the price of solar to such low values that the market would simply have no choice but to adopt it, or developing other technological solutions.
Re: Discovery Loop
#435Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For what purpose? To understand, same reason you reverse engineer anything. Doesn't have to have a further goal than that, understanding the brain better helps in so many ways. But like most technology, obviously can be used for bad too. Should we just skip researching some topics then?
Perhaps consider the scale of bad.
Perhaps consider the scale of good.
Re: Discovery Loop
#436This is one of the interesting aspects the 'AI job loss' community doesn't account for. As the technology unlocks things, more startups are created. And even at a lower nominal engineer-to-work ratio, overall demand for talent still goes up. Ultimately, we are not a single group trying to achieve a common outcome, we are a collection of many groups trying to compete against each other.
What percentage of people work at a startup though? Not just new/small business, which could include restaurants, local services, etc., but tech/science startups that would meaningfully benefit from AI. I'd bet you could 10x the number and still be in low single digit percentages of the US workforce. And it seems pretty likely that AI-enabled startups will also employ less people per-startup. If AI causes a white-col…
Yes. Startups are intensely competitive, exhausting, low-stability places to work. This is the definition of job displacement for most people.
Re: Discovery Loop
#437From 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…
This list smells of so much tech bro “I can do better than the people that have been working in the field for 20 years” egotistical attitude that permeates silicon valley. Why do software engineers think they are smarter than everyone else? Is it because they earn more than most people? But then bankers and finance bros should think they are gods? Also, solar energy is already economical!? Do they mean more economica…
>This list smells of so much tech bro “I can do better than the people that have been working in the field for 20 years” egotistical attitude that permeates silicon valley.
Well, they did solve some math conjectures recently that the people working in the field for many years did not... Also AlphaFold.
Re: Discovery Loop
#438I know these sorts of meta comments are often frowned upon, but good god do I hate this approach of fading in every individual element on scroll down the page. It's one of my biggest pet peeves of "modern" web sites.
yes! and giving current scientific research on reading efficiency pointing towards fixed pages being much better than scroll, the whole web is screwed but these fancy sites... a big merda
Re: Discovery Loop
#439> execution entails repetitive experimental loops that are hard to scale with today's manual efforts: you propose an experiment, implement and run it, examine the results, then iterate to refine your approach.
This is actually a feature, not a bug. We can hire 1000s of undergrad students at minimum wage but chances are the results are nil. Some processes have evolved over time because they’re sensible and need to be carried out carefully.
Re: Discovery Loop
#440*self-discovery loop more like it :-)