Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

John Carmack’s ‘Different Path’ to Artificial General Intelligence

dallasinnovates.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 506 posts

Re: John Carmack’s ‘Different Path’ to Artificial General Intelligence

#101

Post by fmajid »

thom wrote: post #93

I don't want to be an utter bore, but 60% chance of AGI by 2030, taken at face value, would have prompted me as an interviewer to more urgently ask deeper questions about safety. For a long time I have tried to comfort myself that brains are complicated, AI is hard, and maybe there's just a complexity barrier that is going to prevent any sort of hard takeoff scenario. Maybe we can have subhuman AGI that can do lots o…

And ethics. Enslaving intelligent, self-aware AIs is no better than the old transatlantic slave trade. Terminating an AI without its consent is no different than murder. Putting a compulsion in an AI so it craves doing whatever it is you want it to do is no different from what a cult does or drugging someone for exploitation.

Re: John Carmack’s ‘Different Path’ to Artificial General Intelligence

#102

Post by scotty79 »

ipsum2 wrote: post #4
dr_dshiv wrote: post #3

What would be the difference between GPT3 and actual AGI? (Want to make sure we don’t keep moving goalposts)

AGI is usually defined as anything a normal human could do. Examples of some things that GPT is currently lacking: 1) Understanding images and video 2) Learning and remembering things outside the 2048 token context window 3) Interacting with the environment (either through a computer, or in the real world) 4) Doing basic math (1662 + 239 = ?) and logic

> 4) Doing basic math (1662 + 239 = ?) and logic

Doing math. Period.

There are only two things brains do. Math and bullshitting. Transformers have second part covered but the other part is a completely different beast.

I think AGI will be achieved once ML can translate natural language to math, do math then output results as natural language correct in the context of a problem.

Re: John Carmack’s ‘Different Path’ to Artificial General Intelligence

#103

Post by ddevault »

labrador wrote: post #12

This paragraph took me aback: But if I just look at it and say, if 10 years from now, we have ‘universal remote employees’ that are artificial general intelligences, run on clouds, and people can just dial up and say, ‘I want five Franks today and 10 Amys, and we’re going to deploy them on these jobs,’ and you could just spin up like you can cloud-access computing resources, if you could cloud-access essentially arti…

Nice how the goal for artificial general AI (which is literally defined as a sentient artificial being) is to commoditize it and enslave it to capitalism.

Re: John Carmack’s ‘Different Path’ to Artificial General Intelligence

#104

Post by wiz21c »

loveparade wrote: post #26

I'm always taken aback by this fascination and heroification with John Carmack (or similar figures) on HN. I love Doom and Quake too, but that doesn't qualify him any more than any other random senior engineer to work on something totally different. From his interviews it looks like he understands little about the technical details of ML, or about as much as anyone can learn in a few months, and is just banking on PR…

Maybe Carmack is frustrated by the tremendous success of another ex-game developper: Demis Hassabis :-)

Re: John Carmack’s ‘Different Path’ to Artificial General Intelligence

#105

Post by moomoo11 »

modeless wrote: post #14
labrador wrote: post #12

This paragraph took me aback: But if I just look at it and say, if 10 years from now, we have ‘universal remote employees’ that are artificial general intelligences, run on clouds, and people can just dial up and say, ‘I want five Franks today and 10 Amys, and we’re going to deploy them on these jobs,’ and you could just spin up like you can cloud-access computing resources, if you could cloud-access essentially arti…

AI is going to make education way better and more affordable too. Personalized 1:1 tutoring in any subject for the cost of running a model.

Maybe but honestly any time I think about education I get depressed. People in developed countries seem to be regressing.

People don’t read, don’t value deep knowledge or critical thinking, and shun higher education.

I’m sure someone will find something to say in response, but the truth is that outside our tech and $$$$ bubbles most people don’t value these things.

AI will just become a calculator. A simple tool that a few will use to build amazing complex things while the majority don’t even know what the ^ means.

As long as the next generations want to be rappers, social media influencers, or YouTubers, the more we are screwed long term. Growing up in the 90s everyone wanted to be an astronaut or a banker or a firefighter. Those are far more valuable professions than someone who is just used to sell ads or some shitty energy drink.

Re: John Carmack’s ‘Different Path’ to Artificial General Intelligence

#106

Post by Al-Khwarizmi »

tgv wrote: post #23
WoodenChair wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As much as I respect Carmack as a computer graphics expert, I really doubt his competence in machine learning. He doesn't have a single notable paper published. Publishing papers is the way the academic/scientific world measures notability and/or competence. It's not the way the engineering world that Carmack comes from measures it. They measure it by building. But you're right, we kind of have to just trust that h…

AI researcher perhaps, but almost none of them understand cognition. They're focussed on getting something that vaguely resembles a part of the brain to predict the next most likely token. Their idea of cognition apparently stops at Skinner.

Any AI researcher worth their salt knows that those models aren't representative of how the human brain works... but they're just the kind of models that work best out of what we know how to implement right now. There are models with stronger cognitive inspiration, but their performance is worse.

Re: John Carmack’s ‘Different Path’ to Artificial General Intelligence

#107

Post by mellosouls »

loveparade wrote: post #26

I'm always taken aback by this fascination and heroification with John Carmack (or similar figures) on HN. I love Doom and Quake too, but that doesn't qualify him any more than any other random senior engineer to work on something totally different. From his interviews it looks like he understands little about the technical details of ML, or about as much as anyone can learn in a few months, and is just banking on PR…

I agree with your point in general within fields that are a proven success, but as discussed many times on HN, there's no reason to believe current ML/"AI" approaches have much to do with AGI, so it's not obvious what would be gained by him or anybody else investing years in barking up the same barren research tree.

It even makes it clear in the title he's seeking a "different path".

In his favour he's a proven success in different fields; personally I think he's too old to come up with the new ideas needed - that's a young person's game.

But perhaps he can do it as a team lead - and it won't be by following the failed-over-decades path of our current academic gatekeepers.

Re: John Carmack’s ‘Different Path’ to Artificial General Intelligence

#108

Post by igleria »

jhoelzel wrote: post #62

As someone who works in IT for 20 years but has a bachelor in economic psychology, i do believe that we have not solved AGI yet because the creators of the models have the generalized view of the universe that you are "one person" and there are just so many detailed facets to that. Basically the assumption is that if you cram enough data into your gpt model, it should know everything. Which is of course not true, it…

> power gets cheaper in europe

Have you heard about our lord and saviour dynamic tariffs?

Re: John Carmack’s ‘Different Path’ to Artificial General Intelligence

#109

Post by ttctciyf »

blackbear_ wrote: post #18
dr_dshiv wrote: post #3

What would be the difference between GPT3 and actual AGI? (Want to make sure we don’t keep moving goalposts)

Interesting opinions here: https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.06627

The distinction it makes between formal and functional language competence is nicely conceived, though I imagine philosophers might argue its requirement of "extralinguistic capacities that comprise human thought" for functional competence to be begging the question a little!

Re: John Carmack’s ‘Different Path’ to Artificial General Intelligence

#110

Post by hectorlorenzo »

Reading this I have the impression that John Carmack will be to AI what Jeff Hawkins is to brain research: a far-fetched idea, with potential, maybe too abstract and left-field to yield nothing tangible. Looking at the rest of the industry from the sidelines and (maybe) not being taken seriously by it.
Post reply on HN