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

21–30 of 506 posts

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

#21

Post by adrianN »

peepee1982 wrote: post #16
labrador wrote: post #12

This paragraph took me aback: But if I just look at it and say, if 10 years from now, we have ‘universal remote employees’ that are artificial general intelligences, run on clouds, and people can just dial up and say, ‘I want five Franks today and 10 Amys, and we’re going to deploy them on these jobs,’ and you could just spin up like you can cloud-access computing resources, if you could cloud-access essentially arti…

Education is great, but it can go only so far. We will always have to find things to do for the less gifted in order to provide them with some dignity. Even if they are not strictly needed for reasons of productivity or profitability. Anything else would be inhumane.

Panem et circenses. I think it's unlikely that we'll be able to sufficiently transform the economy so that there is an ample supply of desirable jobs that could more profitably done by robots.

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

#23

Post by tgv »

WoodenChair wrote: post #15
random314 wrote: post #11

> So, about four years ago, I went on one of my week-long retreats, where I just take a computer and a stack of reference materials and I spend a week kind of reimplementing the fundamentals of the industry. And getting to the point where it’s like, ‘All right, I understand this well enough to have a serious conversation with a researcher about it.’ And I was pretty excited about getting to that level of understandin…

> As much as I respect Carmack as a computer graphics expert, I really doubt his competence in machine learning. He doesn't have a single notable paper published. Publishing papers is the way the academic/scientific world measures notability and/or competence. It's not the way the engineering world that Carmack comes from measures it. They measure it by building. But you're right, we kind of have to just trust that h…

AI researcher perhaps, but almost none of them understand cognition. They're focussed on getting something that vaguely resembles a part of the brain to predict the next most likely token. Their idea of cognition apparently stops at Skinner.

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

#24

Post by brutusborn »

peepee1982 wrote: post #16
labrador wrote: post #12

This paragraph took me aback: But if I just look at it and say, if 10 years from now, we have ‘universal remote employees’ that are artificial general intelligences, run on clouds, and people can just dial up and say, ‘I want five Franks today and 10 Amys, and we’re going to deploy them on these jobs,’ and you could just spin up like you can cloud-access computing resources, if you could cloud-access essentially arti…

Education is great, but it can go only so far. We will always have to find things to do for the less gifted in order to provide them with some dignity. Even if they are not strictly needed for reasons of productivity or profitability. Anything else would be inhumane.

People can find their own outlets if given the basic necessities and enough time. I fear this attitude will lead to job programs where people work a 9-5 and achieve essentially nothing, I.e. bullshit jobs.

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

#26

Post by loveparade »

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 based on his games and name.

I put him into the same category as Elon Musk, who also understand nothing about technical details of AI, but was still able to hire a world class team at OpenAI. His name and fame counts for something in terms of recruiting and joining his venture may be a good bet because of that, but he's not a person whose opinion on the subject matter I would take seriously in the same way I'd take a researcher seriously.

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

#27

Post by bbor »

peepee1982 wrote: post #16
labrador wrote: post #12

This paragraph took me aback: But if I just look at it and say, if 10 years from now, we have ‘universal remote employees’ that are artificial general intelligences, run on clouds, and people can just dial up and say, ‘I want five Franks today and 10 Amys, and we’re going to deploy them on these jobs,’ and you could just spin up like you can cloud-access computing resources, if you could cloud-access essentially arti…

Education is great, but it can go only so far. We will always have to find things to do for the less gifted in order to provide them with some dignity. Even if they are not strictly needed for reasons of productivity or profitability. Anything else would be inhumane.

Do you see “giftedness” as a 1D score, where someone is either smart or not smart? And presumably this quality happens to correlate with software engineering ability?

I think you’re hinting at some very hurtful, dangerous ideas.

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

#29

Post by nvrmnd »

phodo wrote: post #22

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

I got a let out of Karpathy's video lectures on youtube, for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCc8FmEb1nY

He mentions a few of the bigger papers in multilayer perceptrons (aka deep networks) such as attention is all you need, I think a good place to dive in before coming back to visit some fundamentals.

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

#30

Post by consumer451 »

pete762 wrote: post #25
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)

GPT3 can't do math

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. Friends guessed as 31 , 35, 39 , 49 , 37, but none of guess was right.The guesses were off by 1, 9, 5, 3, and 9 (in a random order). Can you determine the number of balls in a box ?

ChatGPT: Yes, we can determine the number of balls in the box.

ChatGPT: Since the guesses were off by 1, 9, 5, 3, and 9, in some order, the possible numbers of balls in the box are: 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 48, 46, 44, 42

ChatGPT: By checking all possible combinations of the guesses and the numbers they were off by, we can find that the number of balls in the box is 40.

---

Here is a more purely math problem, correct answer:

Prompt: What is the radius of a circle that has a circumference of 3.14 meters?

ChatGPT: The formula for the circumference of a circle is given by 2πr, where r is the radius. To find the radius of a circle with a circumference of 3.14 meters, we can solve for r by rearranging this formula:

ChatGPT: r = C/(2π), where C is the circumference.

ChatGPT: Plugging in the given value of C = 3.14, we have:

ChatGPT: r = 3.14 / (2π) = 0.5.

ChatGPT: So, the radius of a circle with a circumference of 3.14 meters is approximately 0.5 meters.

[0] https://gpuzzles.com/mind-teasers/guess-game-logic-problem/

Post reply on HN