Live data from Hacker News

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

dallasinnovates.com

111–120 of 506 posts

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

#111
Pieces like this have started to really ramp up my anxiety.

> Once it’s figured out, what do you think the ramifications will be?

That'll probably destroy my life? I'm an ML engineer trying my best to immigrate to a better country with my wife who is a digital artist. As much as I think AI is cool - we both won't be needed anymore if the thing is tuned a couple of notches more intelligent. As a matter of fact, she's extremely worried about Midjourney - she probably lost book cover jobs already.

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

#112
post #101
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.

Sure, there will be ethical problems, but contrary to all those listed (slavery, murder), this one could be solved by a simple line:

    # from consciousness import *

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

#113
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most mathematicians aren't creative enough to invent new math methods either, they mostly just apply things they learned in school to find new results. Universities aren't good at finding nor nurturing creative individuals.

There are plenty of new scientific results that in both Math and Machine Learning that are essentially 6 months/a few years/a few decades of hard work away from discovery. As a professor once told me: IF you're lucky, after 10 years in academia, you get to be creative and come up with 4-5 ideas once every 5 years or so (when coming up with the suggested list of research for new phd students to do). Then you get to be…

Yeah, so a person like Carmack who takes the risk and spent his career doing technically creative things could maybe make a difference. Probably not, but as long as creativity is so de-incentivized we will never have too many creative individuals around.

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

#114

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…

> This is not an accurate account of how he said he developed his knowledge base. I quoted him directly, because I was expecting this kind of response. He took a week off and implemented some stuff from the ground up and was ready to have serious conversations with AI researchers. The 40 papers by Ilya came later. I have read a 100 ML papers and reviewed preprints. That's quite a low bar, especially if you are prone…

> The 40 papers by Ilya came later. I have read a 100 ML papers and reviewed preprints.

I would say it’s more likely John Carmack is capable of learning the state-of-the-art of AI from 40 papers than a random (pun intended based on username) from 100.

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

#115
"So I asked Ilya Sutskever, OpenAI’s chief scientist, for a reading list. He gave me a list of like 40 research papers and said, ‘If you really learn all of these, you’ll know 90% of what matters today.’ And I did. I plowed through all those things and it all started sorting out in my head."

Wow, that's going to be one of the more glib things I've read in a while.

This is a bit of a Tom Cruise moment.

I mean, I get it on some level but I suggest it's going to take a bit for someone to 'catch up' to cutting edge AI.

Like more than a 'week of reading papers he doesn't understand'.

Defeating the Rust borrow checker takes longer than that!

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

#116

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…

Banking? Frankly if he was after money there would easier way.

He isn't a cook and he's doing a moonshot towards AGI: I say 'good luck!'

That doesn't mean that I believe that his '60% change of AGI by 2030' isn't wildly overoptimistic, but then again those who take a shot at AGI are overoptimists..

But he can bring a lot of value, we'll see.

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

#117
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GPT3 can't do math

Well, things are moving quickly now. > Release Notes (Jan 30) > We’ve upgraded the ChatGPT model with improved factuality and mathematical capabilities. I just asked it a question from a puzzle site, and the answer is correct, however a different question I posed was answered incorrectly, although it was a logic problem: [0] Prompt: In a guess game , five friends had to guess the exact numbers of balls in a box. Frie…

It can do some trivial problems, but not others, and it can't consistently do real math (proving theorems), because it doesn't understand logic. It can only imitate it some of the time for trivial or often-presented proofs when the necessary steps have become embedded in its next-token-generation model.

It's still getting this wrong, for instance:

Prompt: You call heads/tails for 1000 coin tosses. You know the coin being used is weighted so that it comes up heads 52% of the time. Each correct coin toss prediction earns you $5. What should your strategy be, for calling heads/tails, in order to maximize how much money you receive?

ChatGPT: To maximize your money, you should call heads 52% of the time and tails 48% of the time, as those are the probabilities of getting heads and tails, respectively. This will give you an expected payout of $5 * 0.52 = $2.60 per head and $5 * 0.48 = $2.40 per tail, which is the highest expected value given the information about the coin being weighted.

It's getting closer to being able to prove that the square root of 2 is irrational, but it still flubs a step.

Prompt: Prove that the square root of 2 is irrational.

ChatGPT: ... This means that p can be expressed as 2r for some integer r. Substituting this into the equation above gives us:

ChatGPT: 2q^2 = (2r)^2 = 4r^2

ChatGPT: Dividing both sides by 4 gives us:

ChatGPT: q^2 = r^2

ChatGPT: So q must also be even, which means that both p and q have a common factor of 2...

It failed basic algebraic manipulation, but keeps going with the right reasoning simply because that's what it's been trained on, not because it's reflecting on the equation it just came up with. That's not math. That's mimicry.

Even if it's seen something many times in training, its accuracy gets worse with longer trains of "thought", as expected because a language model like that has ADHD. It can't focus enough on one logical thread, and other "knowledge" leaks in. Ask it to derive the quadratic formula by completing the square, which requires a lot of steps with accurate algebraic manipulation. It goes through some irrelevant algebraic steps, sometimes not even getting the algebraic manipulation correct, and finally (sometimes, depending on how you ask) manufactures the correct answer out of thin air as the last step. I finally got it to answer correctly, by prompting it with the initial equation and that the first step is to divide both sides by a, but it still combined a few steps, not going methodically a single step at a time as prompted.

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

#118
post #65
post #10

>And one of the things that I trained myself to do a few decades ago is pulling ideas out and pursuing them in a way where I’m excited about them, knowing that most of them don’t pan out in the end. Much earlier in my career, when I’d have a really bright idea that didn’t work out, I was crushed afterwards. But eventually I got to the point where I’m really good at just shoveling ideas through my processing and shoot…

I don't think it's something he "trained himself to do." He's always taken risks. He went to juvie for breaking and entering (with thermite) as a kid. He's a college dropout. The pattern from early in his life has been to do whatever he wanted without any kind of risk analysis, not following "common sense."

>common sense

Also called the showstopper for true innovation ;)

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

#119
post #2

Fun interview but barely any meat for those in the field. Just very general questions and answers, saying that the road is murky, but nothing about e.g. if Transformers / attention are the way to go forward, multi-modal models, reinforcement learning + self-supervised learning.

I do not question for a second that Carmack is a computing genius, but “murky” is an understatement. There is nothing of technical, scientific or business value in this interview. It’s just generic words strung together.

Even socially, it fails to plumb the depths. Mr Carmack is taking a "different path" by ... reading the relevant literature and talking to YC? This is 100% mainstream - The difference is what?

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

#120
post #115

"So I asked Ilya Sutskever, OpenAI’s chief scientist, for a reading list. He gave me a list of like 40 research papers and said, ‘If you really learn all of these, you’ll know 90% of what matters today.’ And I did. I plowed through all those things and it all started sorting out in my head." Wow, that's going to be one of the more glib things I've read in a while. This is a bit of a Tom Cruise moment. I mean, I get i…

> Defeating the Rust borrow checker takes longer than that!

Fighting the Rust borrow checker to hate leads and hate to the Dark Side leads.

Harmony with the Rust borrow checker is what you must achieve, padawan.

Post reply on HN