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

121–130 of 506 posts

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

#121

Post by mlatu »

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 would never put these two people in the same box. except the box simply states: stinking rich.

i dont know either personally, but where elon demonstrates being full of shit, carmack would stfu and learn about it before talking. at least thats my impression of them

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

#122

Post by Jensson »

jasmer wrote: 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…

The models aren't particularly hard to implement, so a person who has spent his life and is one of the best game engine programmers in the world I don't think it would take that long to implement the cutting edge of todays machine learning models. Compared to game graphics shaders and the complex interactions you have to work with to get those performant and work correctly and display all the gameplay that happens the technical parts of machine learning are very simple.

I've worked building low level machine learning stuff at Google, it isn't that hard to do at all. The hard part is improving these models, not building them when you already know what to build.

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

#123

Post by olau »

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…

Lex Fridman interviewed Carmack not too long ago. Lex is interested in these things, and did ask him about safety. I got the impression that greater societal concerns didn't interest Carmack much. He's in it to built an AGI because that's what he wants to do, he's a builder and this is just about the most interesting thing you could build. Well, that was my impression, but you can watch the interview yourself.

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

#124

Post by yreg »

fmajid wrote: post #101
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.

That depends on whether you believe it is sentient.

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

#125

Post by kwhitefoot »

jstummbillig wrote: post #91
jdlshore wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lesson to be learned is that it’s less risky, not more, to understand that some ideas don’t work out and to have ways to identify failures quickly.

I get and like that interpretation. I wonder if, societally, it's true though, or if statistically the more reliable way to "succeed" in life, is getting good at selling and defending ideas, even the bad ones.

That only works if you lack a conscience. I think you were right to quote the word succeed!

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

#126

Post by Yoric »

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.

Retraining at the age of 50 or 60 because your entire sector has been replaced by AIs will be hard, though.

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

#127

Post by trabant00 »

> there are signs that extremely powerful things are possible right now in the narrow machine-learning stuff, it’s not clear that those are the necessary steps to get all the way to artificial general intelligence

This is my main takeaway from the interview, as it suits my beliefs. Most people seem to think that if we develop ML further we will go all the way to AGI, I think this is just mimicry step similar to how initial attempts to flight had flapping wings. I do think it is mandatory to explore in all directions but at this point this does not seem to be the one to lead all the way up to AGI.

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

#128

Post by peepee1982 »

bbor wrote: post #27
peepee1982 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Education is great, but it can go only so far. We will always have to find things to do for the less gifted in order to provide them with some dignity. Even if they are not strictly needed for reasons of productivity or profitability. Anything else would be inhumane.

Do you see “giftedness” as a 1D score, where someone is either smart or not smart? And presumably this quality happens to correlate with software engineering ability? I think you’re hinting at some very hurtful, dangerous ideas.

No. I don't.

But some percentage of people don't really benefit that much from education as other people. And I wouldn't won't those people feel useless because it's more economical to replace them with bots instead of giving them something to do regardless.

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

#129

Post by peepee1982 »

beebeepka wrote: post #35
bbor wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you see “giftedness” as a 1D score, where someone is either smart or not smart? And presumably this quality happens to correlate with software engineering ability? I think you’re hinting at some very hurtful, dangerous ideas.

That's how I read it as well. Maybe their heart is at the right place but I think "gifted" and "having what happens to be needed right now" are completely different things, at least to me.

In this context I meant those two things to mean the same, yes.

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

#130

Post by peepee1982 »

bayarearefugee wrote: post #78
bbor wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you see “giftedness” as a 1D score, where someone is either smart or not smart? And presumably this quality happens to correlate with software engineering ability? I think you’re hinting at some very hurtful, dangerous ideas.

The weird bit is that a lot of software engineers seem to have the idea that their work is one of the the last that will be automated. Looking at the current track and extending it out assuming no unforeseen roadblocks, typical software engineering looks to be one of the most threatened. Plumbers are much safer for longer all things considered. The obvious rebuttal to the idea that AI will eat software engineering is…

I feel pretty replaceble already. No need for AI to get any better.
Post reply on HN