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

171–180 of 506 posts

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

#171

Post by eddiewithzato »

int_19h wrote: post #155
yreg wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That depends on whether you believe it is sentient.

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

Nah that’s different. For humans it was an effect of might is right. Slavery was there for cheap labor. It still had a cost since you had to feed them. And many times slaves bought them selves out of slavery.

Today you still have slaves as well, they are just called low income workers in third world countries who make the technology we use in the west. Because if a company is earning billions in revenue, paying a worker $10 a day is cheaper than a slave master in roman times feeding them food ;)

And workers today only have the illusion of choice, since the economy is the master today.

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

#173

Post by prettyStandard »

jstummbillig wrote: post #131
kwhitefoot wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

For most people that lean heavily towards this (we all somewhat do, we all have our pride from time to time) it's probably not a very conscious decision. Framed slightly differently it can easily be made a virtue, for example "be headstrong" or "stand up for what you believe in". It hard to spot, while/when you are doing it.

Not all advice applies all the time.

I think what you're talking about here "stand up for what you believe in" is maybe a position you should take with others.

While "kill your darlings" is a devil's advocate position you should take with yourself when you don't have someone giving you constructive criticism.

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

#174

Post by wcoenen »

ipsum2 wrote: post #4
dr_dshiv wrote: post #3

What would be the difference between GPT3 and actual AGI? (Want to make sure we don’t keep moving goalposts)

AGI is usually defined as anything a normal human could do. Examples of some things that GPT is currently lacking: 1) Understanding images and video 2) Learning and remembering things outside the 2048 token context window 3) Interacting with the environment (either through a computer, or in the real world) 4) Doing basic math (1662 + 239 = ?) and logic

> Learning and remembering things outside the 2048 token context window

It is probably possible to do this with fine tuning.

Once the context window is full, it might be possible to convert the content in there into additional training examples and feed those to a fine tuning process, which then retrains the model. (The OpenAI API for fine tuning is here: https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/fine-tuning)

It would be a bit like sleeping. Whenever the context window fills up, the model would have to go offline for a while to move memories from its context window (short term) to its network weights (long term).

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

#176

Post by dustingetz »

sinuhe69 wrote: post #172

I stopped reading after the passage “and works independently [to achieve AGI]”. In my book, it’s impossible to achieve such breakthrough by working alone, regardless who the man/woman is.

“If a system is to serve the creative spirit, it must be entirely comprehensible to a single individual. Human potential manifests in individuals.” — Dan Ingalls

“Civilization advances by extending the number of operations we can perform without thinking about them”

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

#177

Post by redox99 »

What would we actually consider an AGI? Wikipedia lists the following tests

> The Turing Test (Turing): A machine and a human both converse unseen with a second human, who must evaluate which of the two is the machine, which passes the test if it can fool the evaluator a significant fraction of the time. Note: Turing does not prescribe what should qualify as intelligence, only that knowing that it is a machine should disqualify it.

> The Coffee Test (Wozniak): A machine is required to enter an average American home and figure out how to make coffee: find the coffee machine, find the coffee, add water, find a mug, and brew the coffee by pushing the proper buttons.

> The Robot College Student Test (Goertzel): A machine enrolls in a university, taking and passing the same classes that humans would, and obtaining a degree.

> The Employment Test (Nilsson): A machine performs an economically important job at least as well as humans in the same job.

LLMs don't seem very far from passing 1), 3) and 4). I wouldn't be surprised if "GPT5" passed those 3.

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

#178

Post by fsloth »

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…

The interesting thing in AI is that the whole field is participating in empirical experimentation on computational models of cognition.

So far the search has resulted not in AGI but in realization that cognition is far more complex topic than initially thought - and need to come up with something new (and resulting in past AI winters).

Let's see how it goes this time, the stuff that has come out in the past few years is quite impressive for sure.

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

#179

Post by prawn »

renox wrote: post #116
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…

Banking? Frankly if he was after money there would easier way. He isn't a cook and he's doing a moonshot towards AGI: I say 'good luck!' That doesn't mean that I believe that his '60% change of AGI by 2030' isn't wildly overoptimistic, but then again those who take a shot at AGI are overoptimists.. But he can bring a lot of value, we'll see.

I've never got the impression that he's banking on his reputation getting him anywhere. He "made it" long ago and is in a position to just pursue his passions. I think he broadcasts his interests and progress because others like following along, and not because he's wanting even more attention or success.

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

#180

Post by nloum »

moomoo11 wrote: post #105
modeless wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe but honestly any time I think about education I get depressed. People in developed countries seem to be regressing. People don’t read, don’t value deep knowledge or critical thinking, and shun higher education. I’m sure someone will find something to say in response, but the truth is that outside our tech and $$$$ bubbles most people don’t value these things. AI will just become a calculator. A simple tool that…

It took a thousand years for European barbarians recovering from an empire (Rome) to evolve civically into nations enough to colonize the world. Most developing nations were colonized by empires recently. Give them another thousand years and see what happens. The only thing I think they need is time and being left alone.
Post reply on HN