11–20 of 67 posts
As Scott Alexander at ACX recently said: "AGE OF MIRACLES AND WONDERS: We seem to be in the beginning of a slow takeoff. We should expect things to get very strange for however many years we have left before the singularity. So far the takeoff really is glacially slow (everyone talking about the blindingly fast pace of AI advances is anchored to different alternatives than I am) which just means more time to gawk at…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"More powerful" here just means larger (another commenter says faster chips, but you don't even need that if you spend the next ten years training a model, although that could be a more accurate representation of what Nvidia is trying to say, since the alternative is a no-brainer). AI isn't really "smart," and it seems unlikely we're going to get there anytime soon (in other words, the "singularity" is still firmly o…
Please lay out your definition of smart? For the task they are given, take textual tokens as input and make coherent output, the models seem 'smart enough' for me. The problem here is all the text in the world is still one dimension of information. The emergence of human intelligence, at least I believe, isn't from one dimensional information, but from being able to get feedback and prune the bits of information that…
Firstly, I agree that "smart enough" is what we should focus on here, as I tried to emphasize with my focus on utility.
Secondly, I'm assuming your intent is to ask me when I would consider an AI to be "smart" in the context of my comment. I think I should avoid that question, and perhaps even retract my statement. There is plenty of evidence that ChatGPT is smarter than some humans. All of your 'problems', as you might realize, are equally applicable to some people.
Putting that aside, a model would need to at least be able to internalize any corrections made (by a user, and not necessarily only in the context of training) and reliably produce results consistent with such an internalization, for me to consider it smart-er (i.e., an improvement on today's AI IQ). To be smart without qualification, it would need to go further, into the realm of being able to hold opposing ideas while functioning consistent to a given user's expectations (this one will be big, because it will act as a defense against trolls and misinformation). Bonus points if it's able to improve upon its own learning algorithms and ruminate on ideas (unsupervised learning that is inspired by previous input and not stochastic in nature) without necessitating constant external dialogue.
There is not enough written text to scale a model like ChatGPT at even 10x its current parameters, so improvements will have to come from optimizations and/or longer training (at diminishing returns).
I wouldn't be surprised if we create more data in one year than is in the entire internet from the start
There is not enough written text to scale a model like ChatGPT at even 10x its current parameters, so improvements will have to come from optimizations and/or longer training (at diminishing returns).
Enough data wont really be a problem. https://us.sganalytics.com/blog/2-5-quintillion-bytes-of-dat... I wouldn't be surprised if we create more data in one year than is in the entire internet from the start
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Enough data wont really be a problem. https://us.sganalytics.com/blog/2-5-quintillion-bytes-of-dat... I wouldn't be surprised if we create more data in one year than is in the entire internet from the start
quintillion bytes of social media probably have very limited value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please lay out your definition of smart? For the task they are given, take textual tokens as input and make coherent output, the models seem 'smart enough' for me. The problem here is all the text in the world is still one dimension of information. The emergence of human intelligence, at least I believe, isn't from one dimensional information, but from being able to get feedback and prune the bits of information that…
> Please lay out your definition of smart? Firstly, I agree that "smart enough" is what we should focus on here, as I tried to emphasize with my focus on utility. Secondly, I'm assuming your intent is to ask me when I would consider an AI to be "smart" in the context of my comment. I think I should avoid that question, and perhaps even retract my statement. There is plenty of evidence that ChatGPT is smarter than som…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
quintillion bytes of social media probably have very limited value.
Really? All of humanity imparting everything they think and know publicly seems incredibly valuable. 100% serious.