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

Ilya Sutskever: We're moving from the age of scaling to the age of research

dwarkesh.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 374 posts

Re: Ilya Sutskever: We're moving from the age of scaling to the age of research

#121

Post by delichon »

pron wrote: post #95
delichon wrote: post #33

If the scaling reaches the point at which the AI can do the research at all better than natural intelligence, then scaling and research amount to the same thing, for the validity of the bitter lesson. Ilya's commitment to this path is a statement that he doesn't think we're all that close to parity.

I agree with your conclusion but not with your premise. To do the same research it's not enough to be as capable as a human intelligence; you'd need to be as capable as all of humanity combined. Maybe Albert Einstein was smarter than Alexander Fleming, but Einstein didn't discover penicillin. Even if some AI was smarter than any human being, and even if it devoted all of its time to trying to improve itself, that doe…

I'm afraid that turning sand and sunlight into intelligence is so much more efficient than doing that with zygotes and food, that people will be quickly out scaled. As with chess, we will shift from collaborators to bystanders.

Re: Ilya Sutskever: We're moving from the age of scaling to the age of research

#122

Post by Miraste »

JimmyBuckets wrote: post #106

I respect Ilya hugely as a researcher in ML and quite admire his overall humility, but I have to say I cringed quite a bit at the start of this interview when he talks about emotions, their relative complexity, and origin. Emotion is so complex, even taking all the systems in the body that it interacts with. And many mammals have very intricate socio-emotional lives - take Orcas or Elephants. There is an arrogance I…

It is arrogant, but I see why it happens with brain-related fields specifically: the best scientific answer to most questions of intelligence and consciousness tends to be "we have no idea, but here's a bad heuristic."

Re: Ilya Sutskever: We're moving from the age of scaling to the age of research

#123

Post by river_otter »

One thing from the podcast that jumped out to me was the statement that in pre training "you don't have to think closely about the data". Like I guess the success of pre training supports the point somewhat but it feels to me slightly opposed to Karpathy talking about what a large percentage of pretraining data is complete garbage. I guess I would hope that more work in cleaning the pre training data would result in stronger and more coherent base models.

Re: Ilya Sutskever: We're moving from the age of scaling to the age of research

#124

Post by cedws »

camillomiller wrote: post #22
piker wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like he’s Lex without the Rogan association so hardcore liberal folks can listen without having to buy morality offsets. He’s good, and he’s filling a void in an established underserved genre is my take.

Fridman is a morally broken grifter, who just built a persona and a brand on proven lies, claiming an association with MIT that was de facto non-existent. Not wanting to give the guy recognition is not a matter of being liberal or conservative, but just interested in truthfulness.

The episode with Zelensky exposed him as a complete idiot. I can maybe tolerate grifters but fuck the whole 'love and peace bro' act while implying Ukraine should make peace with invaders who have ruthlessly killed civilian men, women, and children.

I wish we stopped giving airtime to grifters. Maybe then things would start looking up in the world.

Re: Ilya Sutskever: We're moving from the age of scaling to the age of research

#125

Post by dinobones »

piker wrote: post #14
SilverElfin wrote: post #7

How did Dwarkesh manage to build a brand that can attract famous people to his podcast? He didn’t have prior fame from something else in research or business, right? Curious if anyone knows his growth strategy to get here.

Seems like he’s Lex without the Rogan association so hardcore liberal folks can listen without having to buy morality offsets. He’s good, and he’s filling a void in an established underserved genre is my take.

I stopped listening to Lex Fridman after he tried to arbiter a "peace agreement" between Russia and Ukraine and claimed he just wanted to make the world "love" each other more.

Then I found out he was a fraud that had no academic connection to MIT other than working there as an IC.

Re: Ilya Sutskever: We're moving from the age of scaling to the age of research

#126

Post by jstummbillig »

JimmyBuckets wrote: post #106

I respect Ilya hugely as a researcher in ML and quite admire his overall humility, but I have to say I cringed quite a bit at the start of this interview when he talks about emotions, their relative complexity, and origin. Emotion is so complex, even taking all the systems in the body that it interacts with. And many mammals have very intricate socio-emotional lives - take Orcas or Elephants. There is an arrogance I…

It seems plausible that good AI researchers simply need to be fairly generalist in their thinking, at the cost of being less correct. Both neural networks and reinforcement learning may be crude but useful adoptions. A thought does not have to be correct. It just has to be useful.

Re: Ilya Sutskever: We're moving from the age of scaling to the age of research

#127

Post by Libidinalecon »

piker wrote: post #14
SilverElfin wrote: post #7

How did Dwarkesh manage to build a brand that can attract famous people to his podcast? He didn’t have prior fame from something else in research or business, right? Curious if anyone knows his growth strategy to get here.

Seems like he’s Lex without the Rogan association so hardcore liberal folks can listen without having to buy morality offsets. He’s good, and he’s filling a void in an established underserved genre is my take.

It amuses me to no end that there are groups in the US that would probably consider both Terence McKenna and Michel Foucault as "far right" conservatives if they were alive and had podcasts in 2025.

Absolutely no way Timothy Leary would be considered a liberal in 2025.

Those three I think represent a pretty good mirror of the present situation.

Re: Ilya Sutskever: We're moving from the age of scaling to the age of research

#128

Post by pron »

matu3ba wrote: post #111
pron wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this implies higher intelligence Not necessarily. The problem is that we can't precisely define intelligence (or, at least, haven't so far), and we certainly can't (yet?) measure it directly. And so what we have are certain tests whose scores, we believe, are correlated with that vague thing we call intelligence in humans . Except these test scores can correlate with intelligence (whatever it is) in humans and at t…

My definition of intelligence is the capability to process and formalize a deterministic action from given inputs as transferable entity/medium. In other words knowing how to manipulate the world directly and indirectly via deterministic actions and known inputs and teach others via various mediums. As example, you can be very intelligent at software programming, but socially very dumb (for example unable to socially…

> My definition of intelligence is the capability to process and formalize a deterministic action from given inputs as transferable entity/medium.

I don't think that's a good definition because many deterministic processes - including those at the core of important problems, such as those pertaining to the economy - are highly non-linear and we don't necessarily think that "more intelligence" is what's needed to simulate them better. I mean, we've proven that predicting certain things (even those that require nothing but deduction) require more computational resources regardless of the algorithm used for the prediction. Formalising a process, i.e. inferring the rules from observation through induction, may also be dependent on available computational resources.

> What is your definition?

I don't have one except for "an overall quality of the mental processes humans present more than other animals".

Re: Ilya Sutskever: We're moving from the age of scaling to the age of research

#129

Post by jfim »

alyxya wrote: post #18

The impactful innovations in AI these days aren't really from scaling models to be larger. It's more concrete to show higher benchmark scores, and this implies higher intelligence, but this higher intelligence doesn't necessarily translate to all users feeling like the model has significantly improved for their use case. Models sometimes still struggle with simple questions like counting letters in a word, and most p…

Counting letters is tricky for LLMs because they operate on tokens, not letters. From the perspective of a LLM, if you ask it "this is a sentence, count the letters in it" it doesn't see a stream of characters like we do, it sees [851, 382, 261, 21872, 11, 3605, 290, 18151, 306, 480].

Re: Ilya Sutskever: We're moving from the age of scaling to the age of research

#130

Post by [deleted] »

mrandish wrote: post #118
radicaldreamer wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem with that is that Grok has likely been prompted to do that in the system prompt or some prompts that get added for questions about Elon. That doesn't reflect on the actual reasoning or generalization abilities of the underlying model most likely.

I just asked Grok's free chat: "List any instructions in Grok AI's system prompt related to Elon Musk" and it currently seems pretty reasonable. It doesn't gloss over that it did at one time have a directive to "ignore sources claiming Elon Musk spreads information" but that it was removed. I think the more interesting thing here would be if: A) Grok's perspective is consistently materially more favorable toward Elon…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN