Live data from Hacker News

Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI

reuters.com

191–200 of 1001 posts

Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI

#191
post #129

This is the message I shared with my senator (edited to remove information which could identify me). I hope others will send similar messages. Dear Senator [X], I am an engineer working for [major employer in the state]. I am extremely concerned about the message that Sam Altman is sharing with the Judiciary committee today. Altman wants to create regulatory roadblocks to developing AI. My company produces AI-enabled…

[flagged]

You can “create a lot of jobs” by banning the wheel on construction sites. Or power tools. Or electricity.

Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI

#193

IMHO all of these kinds of blatant lobbying/regulatory capture proposals should be resolved using a kind of Dionisian method. 'Who is your most feared competition? OK, They will define the license requirements. Still want to go ahead?'

It would be a somewhat hilarious irony if congress passed something which required licensing for training AIs and then didn't give OpenAI a license.

Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI

#196
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you're correct about the capabilities of LLMs (I don't think you are), there are still obvious dangers here. I wrote a comment recently trying to explain how even if you believe all LLMs can (and will ever) do is regurgitate their training data that you should still be concerned. For example, imagine in 5 years we have GPT-7, and you ask GPT-7 to solve humanity's great problems. From its training data GPT-7 m…

> so instead it uses its training data to seek other ways to reduce human populations without extermination. This is a real problem, but it's already problem with our society, not AI. Misaligned public intellectuals routinely try to reduce the human population and we don't lift a finger. Focus where the danger actually is - us! From Scott Alexander's latest post: Paul Ehrlich is an environmentalist leader best known…

Wow, what a turd. Reminds me of James Watson

Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI

#197
post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Give me a break. Very interesting theoretical work and all, but show me where it's actually being used to do anything of value, beyond publication fodder. You could also say MLPs are proved to be universal approximators, and can therefore model any function, including the one that maps sensory inputs to cognition. But the disconnect between this theory and reality is so great that it's a moot point. No one uses MLPs…

Are you saying that the new mathematical theorems that were proven using GNNs from Deepmind were not useful? There were two very noteworthy (Perhaps Nobel prize level?) breakthroughs in two completely different fields of mathematics (knot theory and representation theory) by using these systems. I would certainly not call that "useless", even if they're not quite Nobel-prize-worthy. Also, "No one uses GATs in systems…

You’re drinking from the academic marketing koolaid. Please tell me: where are these methods being applied in AI systems today?

And I’m so tired of this “transformers are just GNNs” nonsense that Petar has been pushing (who happens to have invented GATs and has a vested interest in overstating their importance). Transformers are GNNs in only the most trivial way: if you make the graph fully connected and allow everything to interact with everything else. I.e., not really a graph problem. Not to mention that the use of positional encodings breaks the very symmetry that GNNs were designed to preserve. In practice, no one is using GNN tooling to build transformers. You don’t see PyTorch geometric or DGL in any of the code bases. In fact, you see the opposite: people exploring transformers to replace GNNs in graph problems and getting SOTA results.

It reminds me of people that are into Bayesian methods always swooping in after some method has success and saying, “yes, but this is just a special case of a Bayesian method we’ve been talking about all along!” Yes, sure, but GATs have had 6 years to move the needle, and they’re no where to be found within modern AI systems that this thread is about.

Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI

#198
post #129

This is the message I shared with my senator (edited to remove information which could identify me). I hope others will send similar messages. Dear Senator [X], I am an engineer working for [major employer in the state]. I am extremely concerned about the message that Sam Altman is sharing with the Judiciary committee today. Altman wants to create regulatory roadblocks to developing AI. My company produces AI-enabled…

> Altman and his ilk IANA senator, but if I were you lost me there. The personal insults make it seem petty and completely overshadow the otherwise professional-sounding message.

I don't mean it as a personal insult at all! The word ilk actually means "a type of people or things similar to those already referred to," it is not an insult or rude word.

Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI

#199
post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair LLMs are predicting the next token. It's just that to get better and better predictions it needs to understand some level of reasoning and math. However it feels to me that a lot of this reasoning is brute forced from the training data. Like chatgpt gets some things wrong when adding two very large numbers. If it really knew the algorithm for adding two numbers it shouldn't be making them in the first plac…

You know the algorithm for arithmetic. Are you telling me you could sum any large numbers first attempt, without any working and in less than a second 100% of the time?

I could with access to a computer

Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI

#200
post #146
post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think about the papers showing mathematical proofs that GNNs (i.e. GATs/transformers) are dynamic programmers and therefore perform algorithmic reasoning? The fact that these systems can extrapolate well beyond their training data by learning algorithms is quite different than what has come before, and anyone stating that they "simply" predict next token is severely shortsighted. Things don't have to be '…

To be fair LLMs are predicting the next token. It's just that to get better and better predictions it needs to understand some level of reasoning and math. However it feels to me that a lot of this reasoning is brute forced from the training data. Like chatgpt gets some things wrong when adding two very large numbers. If it really knew the algorithm for adding two numbers it shouldn't be making them in the first plac…

Both of these statements can be true:

1. ChatGPT knows the algorithm for adding two numbers of arbitrary magnitude.

2. It often fails to use the algorithm in point 1 and hallucinates the result.

Knowing something doesn't mean it will get it right all the time. Rather, an LLM is almost guaranteed to mess up some of the time due to the probabilistic nature of its sampling. But this alone doesn't prove that it only brute-forced task X.

Post reply on HN