191–200 of 800 posts
I got a strong ChatGPT vibe from that article.
- Here's the thing nobody tells you about fitting singularities
- But here's the part that should unsettle you
- And the uncomfortable answer is: it's already happening.
- The labor market isn't adjusting. It's snapping.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We really have no idea how did ability to have a conversation emerge from predicting the next token. Maybe you don't. To be clear, this is benefiting massively from hindsight, just as how if I didn't know that combustion engines worked, I probably wouldn't have dreamed up how to make one, but the emergent conversational capabilities from LLMs are pretty obvious. In a massive dataset of human writing, the answer to…
>In a massive dataset of human writing, the answer to a question is by far the most common thing to follow a question. A normal conversational reply is the most common thing to follow a conversation opener. While impressive, these things aren't magic. Obviously, that's the objective, but who's to say you'll reach a goal just because you set it ? And more importantly, who's the say you have any idea how the goal has a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you replace "taxes" with more general "investment", it's everywhere. A good example is Amazon that has reworked itself from an online bookstore into a global supplier of everything by ruthlessly reinvesting the profits. Taxes don't usually work as efficiently because the state is usually a much more sloppy investor. But it's far from hopeless, see DARPA. If you're looking for periods of high taxes and growing pros…
> It's not a great example though, because the US was the principal winner of WWII, the only large industrial country relatively unscathed by it. The US is also shaping up to be the principal winner in Artificial Intelligence. If, like everyone is postulating, this has the same transformative impact to Robotics as it does to software, we're probably looking at prosperity that will make the 1950s look like table stake…
I think it's extremely early to try and call who the principal winner will be especially with all the global shifts happening.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looking through the poison you linked, how is it generated? It's interesting in that it seems very similar to real data, unlike previous (and very obvious) markov chain garbage text approaches.
We do not discuss algorithms. This is war. Loose lips sink ships. We urge you to build and deploy weapons of your own unique design.
Current LLM-style systems seem like extremely powerful interpolation/search over human knowledge, but not engines of fundamentally new ideas, and it’s unclear how that turns into superintelligence.
As we get closer to a perfect reproduction of everything we know, the graph so far continues to curve upward. Image models are able to produce incredible images, but if you ask one to produce something in an entirely new art style (think e.g. cubism), none of them can. You just get a random existing style. There have been a few original ideas - the QR code art comes to mind[1] - but the idea in those cases comes from the human side.
LLMs are getting extremely good at writing code, but the situation is similar. AI gives us a very good search over humanity's prior work on programming, tailored to any project. We benefit from this a lot considering that we were previously constantly reinventing the wheel. But the LLM of today will never spontaneously realise there there is an undiscovered, even better way to solve a problem. It always falls back on prior best practice.
Unsolved math problems have started to be solved, but as far as I'm aware, always using existing techniques. And so on.
Even as a non-genius human I could come up with a new art style, or have a few novel ideas in solving programming problems. LLMs don't seem capable of that (yet?), but we're expecting them to eventually have their own ideas beyond our capability.
Can a current-style LLM ever be superintelligent? I suppose obviously yes - you'd simply need to train it on a large corpus of data from another superintelligent species (or another superintelligent AI) and then it would act like them. But how do we synthesise superintelligent training data? And even then, would they be limited to what that superintelligence already knew at the time of training?
Maybe a new paradigm will emerge. Or maybe things will actually slow down in a way - will we start to rely on AI so much that most people don't learn enough for themselves that they can make new novel discoveries?
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/141hg9x/co...
This is delightfully unhinged, spending an amazing amount of time describing their model and citing their methodologies before getting to the meat of the meal many of us have been braying about for years: whether the singularity actually happens or not is irrelevant so much as whether enough people believe it will happen and act accordingly. And, yep! A lot of people absolutely believe it will and are acting accordin…
> It’s honestly why I gave up trying to get folks to look at these things rationally as knowable objects (“here’s how LLMs actually work”) Here's your own fallacy you fell into - this is important to understand. Neither do you nor me understand "how LLMs actually work" because, well, nobody really does. Not even the scientists who built the (math around) models. So, you can't really use that argument because it would…
The simplest way to stop people from thinking is to have a semi-plausible / "made-me-smart" incorrect mental model of how things work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
COVID has cured me (hah!) of the notion that humanity will be able to pull together when faced with a common enemy. That means global warming or the next pandemic are going to happen and we will not be able to stop it from happening because a solid percentage can't wait to jump off the ledge, and they'll push you off too.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
It is so easy to critique the response in hindsight. Or at the time. But critiques like that ignore uncertainty, risk, and unavoidably getting it "wrong" (on any and all dimensions), no matter what anyone did. With a new virus successfully circumnavigating the globe in a very short period of time, with billions of potential brand new hosts to infect and adapt within, and no way to know ahead of time how virulent and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>In a massive dataset of human writing, the answer to a question is by far the most common thing to follow a question. A normal conversational reply is the most common thing to follow a conversation opener. While impressive, these things aren't magic. Obviously, that's the objective, but who's to say you'll reach a goal just because you set it ? And more importantly, who's the say you have any idea how the goal has a…
We know exactly what is going on inside the box. The problem isn't knowing what is going on inside the box, the problem is that it's all binary arithmetic & no human being evolved to make sense of binary arithmetic so it seems like magic to you when in reality it's nothing more than a circuit w/ billions of logic gates.
Your comment about 'binary arithmetic' and 'billions of logic gates' is just nonsense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You won't be on the beach when you get turned into paperclips. The machines will come and harvest your ass. Don't click here: https://www.decisionproblem.com/paperclips/
having played that when it came out, my conclusion was that no, i will definitely be able to be on a beach; i am too meaty and fleshy to be good paperclip