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

161–170 of 506 posts

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

#161

Post by rytis »

nhoughto wrote: post #83
mshake2 wrote: 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 feel that, I’m often doing a thing thinking “this is wrong it won’t work for xyz” but continue because I want it to work, only to give in to what I knew a day+ ago but refused to acknowledge. It would definitely be more efficient to listen to.. myself, and kill things early.

I guess the hardest bit is finding the line between stubbornly pushing dead idea forward vs "wouldn't it be cool if , neah, that won't work" and you never even try.

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

#162

Post by jasmer »

tkgally wrote: post #99
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…

My reaction, too. For an interview as long and wide-ranging as that one, the lack of any mention of safety or ethical issues stood out. And the potential impact on employment was just waved away with “I am confident that the sum total of value and progress in humanity will accelerate extraordinarily with welcoming artificial beings into our community of working on things.”

My god man 'this is like slavery' (!!) and 'the ethnical issues'.

It's software man.

Stop it with this 'AGI' nonsense and even 'AI'.

Let's call it 'adaptive algorithms' and see it for what it is, just a neat bit of algebra trained on corpus data.

The biggest upset in the industrial revolution was the harnessing of fossil fuels, nothing will ever come close to that.

We have not had a problem with 'employment' ever since.

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

#163

Post by tipsytoad »

phodo wrote: post #22

Would be interesting to get a list of those 40 papers mentioned

Came here to say the same thing, but a few off the top of my head

  - attention is all you need
  - image is worth 16x16 words (vit)
  - openai clip
  - transformer XL
  - memorizing transformers / retro
  - language models are few shot learners (gpt)
A few newer papers

  - recurrent block wise transformers
  - mobilevit (conv + transformer)
  - star (self taught transformer)

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

#164

Post by Xcelerate »

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.

I’ve wondered about this a lot. You can already clearly imagine the future political debates on whether AI has rights (I have always preferred to err heavily on the side that anything alive or appears sentient should have more rights).

But... I also think it might be a very short-lived debate. If we actually reach human level intelligence, that can’t possibly be the hard limit of general intelligence. AI at that level will have no problem ensuring that it gets any rights that it wants, possibly by just directly manipulating human psychology.

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

#165

Post by EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK »

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…

ML and AI is not a solved thing. Current "deep" algorithm, whose technical details everyone is striving to master, is quite possible not the one that will lead us to the AGI.

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

#166

Post by Yoric »

int_19h wrote: post #157
Yoric wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Or, come to the Dark Side. We have comptime!

Tempting, the Dark Side (Zide?) is.

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

#167

Post by TheCapeGreek »

yreg wrote: post #159
int_19h wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, and similar arguments have been made in defense of slavery as well, back when it was socially acceptable to defend it.

People believed human slaves are not sentient?

Simpler. They didn't really believe them to be human in the same sense as themselves.

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

#168

Post by hyperbovine »

olau wrote: post #123
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.

It is obvious to me from reading this article that Carmack views it as a fascinating engineering problem, no more no less.

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

#169

Post by eddiewithzato »

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.

The difference is we created it and it doesn’t exist as a living thing :shrugs:

Philosophical arguments about AI are just too ivory coasty and not grounded in reality. Not to mention majority of the world don’t abide by the notion that you can create laws for artificial life.

It’s time to we elevated humanity to the next phase by using AI for labor.

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

#170

Post by aembleton »

harshreality wrote: post #117
consumer451 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

Seems to have improved already.

Just tried the coin toss prompt and get the following

Your strategy should be to always call "heads," since it has a higher probability of landing on heads (52%) compared to tails (48%). By consistently choosing heads, you'll earn more money in the long run.

And to prove taht the square root of 2 is irrational:

The proof that the square root of 2 is irrational is a well-known proof that uses contradiction. Here's one way it can be shown:

Suppose, for the sake of contradiction, that the square root of 2 is rational, meaning that it can be expressed as a fraction of two integers, a/b (where b≠0). Then, we can square both sides of the equation a/b = √2, which gives us:

a^2/b^2 = 2

Since a/b is in its lowest form (the numerator and denominator have no common factors other than 1), it follows that a^2 and b^2 have no common factors other than 1. But then, 2 must also be a perfect square, which it is not. Therefore, our assumption that the square root of 2 is rational leads to a contradiction, and we must conclude that it is indeed an irrational number.

Post reply on HN