Earlier quoted context omitted.
[citation needed]
exactly, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim so SpicyLemonZest, not me
Never had a spicy lemon, so I'm already sceptical.
Meta's Vision for Superintelligence
131–140 of 184 posts
Re: Meta's Vision for Superintelligence
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the big-tech worker is closer to the robber baron Zuckerberg A big tech worker earning 200k is closer to a minimum wage worker earning 20k per year than Zuckerberg earning 20M per year with net worth of 200B
Yes, but from the point of view of the minimum wage worker, they don't identify with either the engineer or Zuck, so those two are equivalent.
What now? How would you even begin to know this? It sounds like you are out of touch if you don't think low wage earners can tell the vast difference between normal people and billionaires.
Re: Meta's Vision for Superintelligence
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is worth emphasizing that dogs wouldn't understand formal calculus even if they were smarter than humans! Exactly! If a dog invented a dog superintelligence and it discovered calculus, the dogs would never understand that discovery. I think a superintelligence we build will discover things we cannot understand.
No, you totally misunderstood my point. Formal calculus is not a physical fact of the universe, it is an abstract human tool that other species (including dogs) are not capable of using, just like they can't use hammers or drive cars. The problem is not a lack of intelligence, it's having the wrong body.
I misunderstood it too. Maybe you're superintelligent!
Re: Meta's Vision for Superintelligence
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
[citation needed]
exactly, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim so SpicyLemonZest, not me
To be clear, I personally don't think that current models point the way towards superintelligence. But it does us no good to pretend that this is some absurd opinion from a guy who's looking for the next world revolution after the Metaverse didn't work out. Zuckerberg thinks superintelligence is close because a number of experts actively engaged in the field say that it's close. When you and I say it's not close, we're disagreeing not with crazy randos who can be dismissed out of hand, but with smart people who generally know what they're doing.
Re: Meta's Vision for Superintelligence
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anthropic also expects that superintelligence will be reached in the somewhat near future. The intuition is that there's just not that much distance between a chatbot that can manage a vending machine poorly and a chatbot that can manage it well.
Even if that intuition is correct and they can fix the vending machine with a bit more data and RLHF, I fail to see where the "super" comes in here. How the fk are they going to get superintelligent training data? A time machine?
You're getting at a deep point of disagreement - should we expect a modern or near-future LLM to be limited by the intelligence of the people who generated its training data? I don't think anyone claims to have a provably correct answer. There's one intuition that says yes (why should it be impossible to make new insights from data collected by people who didn't have those insights?) and another that says no (how can a statistical average of N people's most likely responses be smarter than any of those N?)
Re: Meta's Vision for Superintelligence
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the government would tax your higher than average tech wage till your take home pay would match that of a train conductor's or bus driver's, like in Western Europe I live in Europe and earn ca. 6 times more than my friend who is a bus driver in the same city. We both have access to free education and, if we wish, also free healthcare, for which I am paying slightly more, but I really don't mind.
If you earn 6 times more than your friend who is a bus driver, you live in a place that has an unusually high income disparity for Europe.
That doesn't scan. In which Western European country is that massive difference?
Either you have a FANG wage or your friend has a poverty wage because here's how it's in Austria SW Dev wage 3k net/month, bus driver 2,5k. There's no 6x difference here.
So you're proving my point that it works for you when income distribution is not egalitarian because you wouldn't be very happy if you earned the same as your friend.
Re: Meta's Vision for Superintelligence
#137[deleted]
Re: Meta's Vision for Superintelligence
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if that intuition is correct and they can fix the vending machine with a bit more data and RLHF, I fail to see where the "super" comes in here. How the fk are they going to get superintelligent training data? A time machine?
You're getting at a deep point of disagreement - should we expect a modern or near-future LLM to be limited by the intelligence of the people who generated its training data? I don't think anyone claims to have a provably correct answer. There's one intuition that says yes (why should it be impossible to make new insights from data collected by people who didn't have those insights?) and another that says no (how can…
I think you are reading a little too much into my comment but I understand where you are coming from. My point is that even if you agree with this:
There’s just not that much distance between a chatbot that can manage a vending machine poorly and a chatbot that can manage it well.
There’s not much distance between a chatbot that is as intelligent as a human and a chatbot that is more intelligent than a human.
Re: Meta's Vision for Superintelligence
#139This stuff is naive. There's a bunch of people who want a large income (wealth) disparity, and they will fight to preserve it unless you give them an equivalent station in the 'new world'. But you will still need to sustain ex-workers if they can't get normal jobs, and those same people at the top will not tolerate the taxes required to sustain a basic level of living for much wider population. They already can't tol…
I think perhaps it would be useful to completely ignore the nice words people use and just judge everyone based on their behavior. From Zuckerberg’s behavior, since the beginning, it’s clear what he wants is power, and if you have the kind of mental health disorder where you believe you know better than everyone and deserve power over others, then that’s not dystopian at all. Everything he says is PR virtue signaling…
> completely ignore the nice words people use
Kind of an unrelated topic but I'm reminded of a video essay in which the creator talks about this. They put it very kindly, IMO:
> Rich and powerful people have quite a different attitude and approach to truth and lies and games compared to ordinary people.
Which sounds like a really nice way of saying that rich and powerful people are dishonest by ordinary standards.
Re: Meta's Vision for Superintelligence
#140When prompt injection is solved I’ll believe super intelligence is possible.
Isn't that a bit like saying that if common cold is solved, you will believe that human intelligence is possible?
Why isn't it super intelligent if there are security flaws in the system.
[Not taking a stance on wether super intelligence is possible but your condition seems a bit arbitrary]