171–180 of 249 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've also lived through many technologies that failed to achieve mainstream adoption despite demonstrating comparable levels of hype.
It was only a few years ago that fully self-driving cars were only a few years away.
I mean, it's true that we still don't know whether self-driving cars are a few years away, but the analogy with "LLMs are the beginning of AGI" is apt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
LLM are mathematical models that, given your question, return a sequence of words based on a very complex probability model. The many examples on the internet show that ChatGPT doesn't understand most concepts. For instance, it doesn't know what a book is; it just knows what humans say about books. Finally, OpenAI has already stated there is a limit to how far the current AI models can progress. ChatGPT 5 will eventu…
> LLM are mathematical models that, given your question, return a sequence of words based on a very complex probability model. How is this different from how humans respond? Our model could be just some orders of magnitude more complex. Or do you think there some _fundamentally_ different things are going on in the human brain?
For example, if you ask ChatGPT if books can be fluorescent it says no. However, as an adult you know someone somewhere has made a book with fluorescent images, as it is a cool thing. You are combining knowledge from two different fields (books + fluorescence) and establishing the likelihood of someone being able to combine them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
LLM are mathematical models that, given your question, return a sequence of words based on a very complex probability model. The many examples on the internet show that ChatGPT doesn't understand most concepts. For instance, it doesn't know what a book is; it just knows what humans say about books. Finally, OpenAI has already stated there is a limit to how far the current AI models can progress. ChatGPT 5 will eventu…
> LLM are mathematical models that, given your question, return a sequence of words based on a very complex probability model. I don't think that this is true. LLMs can be modeled with mathematical objects, yes. Functions, sets, numbers, relations, all are very powerful, and can model anything. They can model LLMs, as they can model 'you' for example. Are you a function from the states of the universe to itself?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing points to this I'm afraid. All we have with LLMs is a probabilistic word salad generator that is realistic enough to get people who should / should not know better very excited. It is better than Google search because it puts the results into a realistic sounding piece of text. It is worse than Google search because it does not provide sources or context. Both will steal the information you feed in. Exactly n…
> probabilistic word salad generator > Exactly no progress has been made in understanding or creating real intelligence in any meaningful sense Strong words… The thing has understanding. It may be alien and imperfect, with strange failure modes and quirks. But it has significant understanding of the real world. At this point, there are countless compelling examples demonstrating this. The only way the model could so…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with you, but a reasonable case could be made for viewing standard of living as material access so I think that's where a lot of us talk past one another. Also American society is pretty disdainful of security, historically.
Isn’t housing part of that material access which has become harder to maintain and access by more and more? People living paycheck to paycheck to pay huge rents, people living in tents and so on seems to indicate some decrease in the standard of living.
He (and most people on HN) are still underestimating the impact of this. Everything points at AI soon becoming far more intelligent than any human. That's not science fiction about the remote future in a hundred years. We are talking about something in the order of ten years. We are actually at the brink of the "technological singularity". It's happening. It's happening.
Nothing points to this I'm afraid. All we have with LLMs is a probabilistic word salad generator that is realistic enough to get people who should / should not know better very excited. It is better than Google search because it puts the results into a realistic sounding piece of text. It is worse than Google search because it does not provide sources or context. Both will steal the information you feed in. Exactly n…
> To those who believe that new jobs will emerge at meaningful rates to absorb the losses and shocks, what exactly are those new jobs? Prompt Engineering. The highest paid will be the ones who are able to extract the most value out of LLMs with the least effort.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
LLM are mathematical models that, given your question, return a sequence of words based on a very complex probability model. The many examples on the internet show that ChatGPT doesn't understand most concepts. For instance, it doesn't know what a book is; it just knows what humans say about books. Finally, OpenAI has already stated there is a limit to how far the current AI models can progress. ChatGPT 5 will eventu…
> LLM are mathematical models that, given your question, return a sequence of words based on a very complex probability model. How is this different from how humans respond? Our model could be just some orders of magnitude more complex. Or do you think there some _fundamentally_ different things are going on in the human brain?
The more useful question is: can the token prediction model scale to the level of a human intelligence within a reasonable power budget compared to a brain? It's comparing apples to oranges right now but the human brain consumes under 20 watts, a tiny fraction of the TDP of a single A100 GP, and the state of the art isn't even close in performance. We've got a long way to go before we can conclusively answer these questions.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_approximation_theore...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the 70s the top 1% couldn’t even conceive of the power they’d have in their pockets one day. Today both billionaires and the rest of the world can have access to that same power. We’re all carrying the same phones in our pockets after all.
I will give you all the power of my phone and you give me a billion dollars. Easy trade right.
The technology you take for granted is huge. Warren Buffet said he would rather give up flying on a private jet, than give up his smartphone.