111–120 of 165 posts
Somewhat related but here's my take on super intelligence or AGI. I have worked with CNN,GNN and other old school AI methods, but don't have the resources to build a real SOT LLM, but I do use and tinker with LLM's occasionally. If AGI or SI(super intelligence)/is possible, and that is an if...I don't think LLM's are going to be this silver bullet solution Just as we have in the real world of people who are dedicated…
Somewhat related but here's my take on super intelligence or AGI. I have worked with CNN,GNN and other old school AI methods, but don't have the resources to build a real SOT LLM, but I do use and tinker with LLM's occasionally. If AGI or SI(super intelligence)/is possible, and that is an if...I don't think LLM's are going to be this silver bullet solution Just as we have in the real world of people who are dedicated…
"If AGI ... is possible" I don't get this line of thinking. AGI already exists - it's in our heads! So then the question is: is what's in our heads magic, or can we build it? If you think it's magic, fine - no point arguing. But if not, we will build it one day.
Somewhat related but here's my take on super intelligence or AGI. I have worked with CNN,GNN and other old school AI methods, but don't have the resources to build a real SOT LLM, but I do use and tinker with LLM's occasionally. If AGI or SI(super intelligence)/is possible, and that is an if...I don't think LLM's are going to be this silver bullet solution Just as we have in the real world of people who are dedicated…
Now ask it to solve step by step by pure reasoning. You'll get a really intelligent sounding response that sounds correct, but on closer inspection makes absolutely no sense, every step has ridiculous errors like "we start with options {1, 7} but eliminate 2, leaving only option 3", and then at the end it just throws all that out and says "and therefore ..." and gives you the original answer.
That tells me there's essentially zero reasoning ability in these things, and anything that looks like reasoning has been largely hand-baked into it. All they do on their own is complete sentences with statistically-likely words. So yeah, as much as people talk about it, I don't see us as being remotely close to AGI at this point. Just don't tell the investors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see why a mixture of experts couldn't be distilled into a single model and unified latent space
You could, but in many cases you wouldn't want to. You will get superior results with a fixed compute budget by relying on external tool use (where "tool" is defined liberally, and can include smaller narrow neural nets like GraphCast & AlphaGo) rather that stuffing all tools into a monolithic model.
Of course, cost-wise and training time wise, we're probably a long way off from being able to replicate that in a general purpose NN. But in theory, given enough money and time, presumably it's possible, and conceivably would produce better results.
Somewhat related but here's my take on super intelligence or AGI. I have worked with CNN,GNN and other old school AI methods, but don't have the resources to build a real SOT LLM, but I do use and tinker with LLM's occasionally. If AGI or SI(super intelligence)/is possible, and that is an if...I don't think LLM's are going to be this silver bullet solution Just as we have in the real world of people who are dedicated…
There's a _lot_ of smoke and mirrors. Paste a sudoku into chatgpt and ask it to solve. Amazing, it does it perfectly! Of course that's because it ran a sudoku-solving program that it pulled off github. Now ask it to solve step by step by pure reasoning. You'll get a really intelligent sounding response that sounds correct, but on closer inspection makes absolutely no sense, every step has ridiculous errors like "we s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I am not sure what you mean by LLM when you say they are professional bullshitter. Not parent-poster, but an LLM is a tool for extending a document by choosing whatever statistically-seems-right based on other documents, and it does so with no consideration of worldly facts and no modeling of logical prepositions or contradictions. (Which also relates to math problems.) If it has been fed on documents with logic pu…
Tell me you haven’t used the latest models, without telling me you haven’t used the latest models? They do hallucinate at times, but you’re missing a lot of real utility by claiming they are basically bullshit engines. They can now use tools, and maintain internal consistency over long context windows (with both text and video). They can iterate fully autonomously on software development by building, testing, and bug…
Somewhat related but here's my take on super intelligence or AGI. I have worked with CNN,GNN and other old school AI methods, but don't have the resources to build a real SOT LLM, but I do use and tinker with LLM's occasionally. If AGI or SI(super intelligence)/is possible, and that is an if...I don't think LLM's are going to be this silver bullet solution Just as we have in the real world of people who are dedicated…
"If AGI ... is possible" I don't get this line of thinking. AGI already exists - it's in our heads! So then the question is: is what's in our heads magic, or can we build it? If you think it's magic, fine - no point arguing. But if not, we will build it one day.
We can't really talk too much about the differences between the intelligence of a dog and the intelligence of a human; in real terms. It seems as though humans might have more connections, different types of cells but then again; there's species out there that also have types of neurons we don't have and more dense regions in areas of the brain than we do.
And on top of that, dive into a single neuron and you will find a world of complexity. The reason why a neuron might fire or not given a stimuli is an extremely complicated and often stochastic process; that's actually one of the reasons why we use non-linearities in the neural networks we create. But how nuance are we really capturing?
The reason we do mathematics the way we do has well studied neurological patterns, we come out of the box with understandings of the world. And many animals do, actually, similar neurological patterns are found in different species.
It's incredible to think of the precision and the complexity of the tasks a fly undertakes during their life, and we actually have mapped the entire brain (if we can call it that, i would) of a fly. Every neuron and every connection the fly has. There's experiments done with neural networks where we've tried to imitate these (the brain of a fly has less parameters [number of nodes and edges] than modern LLMs) with very interesting results. But can we say we understand them? Not really.
And finally, I want to bring up something that's not usually considered when it comes to these things but there's a lot of processes at the molecular level in our cells that actually make use of quantum mechanics, there's a whole field of biology that's dedicated to studying these processes. So yeah, I mean, maybe we can build it but first we need to understand what's going on and why, I believe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a _lot_ of smoke and mirrors. Paste a sudoku into chatgpt and ask it to solve. Amazing, it does it perfectly! Of course that's because it ran a sudoku-solving program that it pulled off github. Now ask it to solve step by step by pure reasoning. You'll get a really intelligent sounding response that sounds correct, but on closer inspection makes absolutely no sense, every step has ridiculous errors like "we s…
On the other side of the coin, I think people also underestimate the amount of human thinking and intelligence is just completing statistically likely words. Most actions and certainly reactions people do everyday involve very little reasoning. Instead just following the most used neuron.
Though, there are error correction mechanisms, systems for validation, and a coherent underlying model of the world that is used by tthee brain.
FWIW, it is likely the most used set of neuron connections, sets of millions in play and their interconnections being the important part. That subset being one of billions of others with thousands of connections between each neuron - keep in mind it is not the set of neurons firing that matters, but the set of connections firing. The set of connections is a vastly large number.
Like, if you have three neurons, your brain can encode 10 data points. Let's call these A, B,C. A firing and terminating is one (so three for each), each edge, eg A to B is another three, each set of two edges, eg A to B to C (three more), and all three edges for one more. Then keep in mind you have billions of neurons and they are each interconnected by the thousands.
Somewhat related but here's my take on super intelligence or AGI. I have worked with CNN,GNN and other old school AI methods, but don't have the resources to build a real SOT LLM, but I do use and tinker with LLM's occasionally. If AGI or SI(super intelligence)/is possible, and that is an if...I don't think LLM's are going to be this silver bullet solution Just as we have in the real world of people who are dedicated…
"If AGI ... is possible" I don't get this line of thinking. AGI already exists - it's in our heads! So then the question is: is what's in our heads magic, or can we build it? If you think it's magic, fine - no point arguing. But if not, we will build it one day.
It is less magic, just insanely complicated. We therefore very well might not build it one day. Your claim we would solve it one day is not obvious and needs solid evidence. Some cryptographic problems require millions of years of compute to solve, why cant it be the case that AGI requires petayears of compute? A billion fold increase in compute still won't do it, hence, maybe not ever. 4 billion years and a trillion fold increase in compute might not be enough. (Assuming we have that long. Dawkins was most concerned about humanity surviving the next 500 years.)