Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Neural Network Diffusion

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 92 posts

Re: Neural Network Diffusion

#21

Post by pests »

GuB-42 wrote: post #10
falcor84 wrote: post #4

Seems like we're getting very close to recursive self-improvement [0]. [0] https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/recursive-self-improvement

Doesn't look that different from what we are already doing. For example AlphaGo/AlphaZero/MuZero learn to play board games by playing repeatedly against itself, it is a self improvement loop leading to superhuman play. It was a major breakthrough for the game of Go, and it lead to advances in the field of machine learning, but we are still far from something resembling technological singularity. GANs are another exam…

Go and Chess still has rules that are hard coded which at least gives a framework to optimize in. What rules do you give an LLM?

Re: Neural Network Diffusion

#22

Post by [deleted] »

astrange wrote: post #16
falcor84 wrote: post #4

Seems like we're getting very close to recursive self-improvement [0]. [0] https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/recursive-self-improvement

No, this is an example of an existing technique called hypernetworks. It's not "recursive self improvement", which is just a belief that magic is real and you can wish an AI into existence. In particular, this one needs too much training data, and you can't define "improvement" without knowing what to improve to.

[deleted]

Re: Neural Network Diffusion

#23

Post by killerstorm »

astrange wrote: post #16
falcor84 wrote: post #4

Seems like we're getting very close to recursive self-improvement [0]. [0] https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/recursive-self-improvement

No, this is an example of an existing technique called hypernetworks. It's not "recursive self improvement", which is just a belief that magic is real and you can wish an AI into existence. In particular, this one needs too much training data, and you can't define "improvement" without knowing what to improve to.

> which is just a belief that magic is real

Is there a law of thermodynamics which prevents AI from writing code which would train a better AI? Never learned that one in school.

And FYI here's OpenAI plan to align superintelligence: "Our goal is to build a roughly human-level automated alignment researcher. We can then use vast amounts of compute to scale our efforts, and iteratively align superintelligence."

I guess people working there believe in magic.

> and you can wish an AI into existence.

Eh? People believe that self-improvement might happen when AI is around human-level.

Re: Neural Network Diffusion

#24

Post by advael »

killerstorm wrote: post #23
astrange wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, this is an example of an existing technique called hypernetworks. It's not "recursive self improvement", which is just a belief that magic is real and you can wish an AI into existence. In particular, this one needs too much training data, and you can't define "improvement" without knowing what to improve to.

> which is just a belief that magic is real Is there a law of thermodynamics which prevents AI from writing code which would train a better AI? Never learned that one in school. And FYI here's OpenAI plan to align superintelligence: "Our goal is to build a roughly human-level automated alignment researcher. We can then use vast amounts of compute to scale our efforts, and iteratively align superintelligence." I guess…

To be honest, I think a lot of smart people are willing to believe in magic when they've demonstrated some strong capability and the people funding their company want magic to happen.

Re: Neural Network Diffusion

#25

Post by QuadmasterXLII »

nerdponx wrote: post #19
goggy_googy wrote: post #13

Important to note, they say "From these generated models, we select the one with the best performance on the training set." Definitely potential for bias here.

I'd have liked to see the distribution of generated model performance.

Fig 4b

Re: Neural Network Diffusion

#26

Post by killerstorm »

advael wrote: post #24
killerstorm wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which is just a belief that magic is real Is there a law of thermodynamics which prevents AI from writing code which would train a better AI? Never learned that one in school. And FYI here's OpenAI plan to align superintelligence: "Our goal is to build a roughly human-level automated alignment researcher. We can then use vast amounts of compute to scale our efforts, and iteratively align superintelligence." I guess…

To be honest, I think a lot of smart people are willing to believe in magic when they've demonstrated some strong capability and the people funding their company want magic to happen.

It's not magic, though. If AI can do work of a human, it can do work of a human. It's a trivial statement, and inability to see it is a hard cope.

Are you gonna to take a bet "AI won't be able to do X in 10 years" for some X which people can learn to do now? If you're unwilling to bet then you believe that AI would plausibly be able to perform any human job, including job of AI researcher.

Re: Neural Network Diffusion

#27

Post by advael »

killerstorm wrote: post #26
advael wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest, I think a lot of smart people are willing to believe in magic when they've demonstrated some strong capability and the people funding their company want magic to happen.

It's not magic, though. If AI can do work of a human, it can do work of a human. It's a trivial statement, and inability to see it is a hard cope. Are you gonna to take a bet "AI won't be able to do X in 10 years" for some X which people can learn to do now? If you're unwilling to bet then you believe that AI would plausibly be able to perform any human job, including job of AI researcher.

I don't claim it's impossible, just that there isn't a clear path from what exists now to that reality, and that the explanation presented by the above commenter (and I suppose OpenAI's website) does not clarify what they think the path is

Re: Neural Network Diffusion

#28

Post by woopsn »

killerstorm wrote: post #23
astrange wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, this is an example of an existing technique called hypernetworks. It's not "recursive self improvement", which is just a belief that magic is real and you can wish an AI into existence. In particular, this one needs too much training data, and you can't define "improvement" without knowing what to improve to.

> which is just a belief that magic is real Is there a law of thermodynamics which prevents AI from writing code which would train a better AI? Never learned that one in school. And FYI here's OpenAI plan to align superintelligence: "Our goal is to build a roughly human-level automated alignment researcher. We can then use vast amounts of compute to scale our efforts, and iteratively align superintelligence." I guess…

They do. Altman is saying their tech may be poised to capture the sum of all value in Earth's future light cone.

Saying "well that is not physically impermissible" doesn't make it real.

In any case nobody has ever shown that recursive self-improvement "takes off", and nor is that what we should expect a priori.

Re: Neural Network Diffusion

#29

Post by philsnow »

falcor84 wrote: post #4

Seems like we're getting very close to recursive self-improvement [0]. [0] https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/recursive-self-improvement

A rare opportunity for the other four-letter comic to be applicable: http://smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-12-13

(Though I suppose this skips Neuralink / step 3 and jumps right to step 4.)

Re: Neural Network Diffusion

#30

Post by rdedev »

killerstorm wrote: post #26
advael wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest, I think a lot of smart people are willing to believe in magic when they've demonstrated some strong capability and the people funding their company want magic to happen.

It's not magic, though. If AI can do work of a human, it can do work of a human. It's a trivial statement, and inability to see it is a hard cope. Are you gonna to take a bet "AI won't be able to do X in 10 years" for some X which people can learn to do now? If you're unwilling to bet then you believe that AI would plausibly be able to perform any human job, including job of AI researcher.

At the end of the day it can only get as far as the data it has. Let's say you want to make a drug that inhibits a protein. The AI can generate plausible drugs but to see if it actually works you need to test it in the lab and then on an animal etc. now you can have an AI that has a perfect understanding of how a drug interacts with a protein but wesuch data is not available in the first place. Without that you can't just simply scale gpt type models
Post reply on HN