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

231–240 of 506 posts

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

#231

Post by epups »

nnq wrote: post #222
poulpy123 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As soon as we reach real AI, even at the level of a 5 years old, it is game over. So education or not education people will become completely useless to the rich that will own the AI

you can also translate "being useless" as "they having no reason to manipulate me into slaving as a cog in their machine/society/whatever"... I'd say uselessness should be our highest aspiration, when people higher up have no need to constantly brainwash you and social condition you into being just another cog in the machine you get true freedom.

I would rather be a cog that produces economic value, and therefore is entitled to part of it, than literally useless, because then my bargaining position is going to be quite limited. My freedom is larger in the former scenario in fact.

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

#232

Post by JKCalhoun »

thom wrote: post #93

I don't want to be an utter bore, but 60% chance of AGI by 2030, taken at face value, would have prompted me as an interviewer to more urgently ask deeper questions about safety. For a long time I have tried to comfort myself that brains are complicated, AI is hard, and maybe there's just a complexity barrier that is going to prevent any sort of hard takeoff scenario. Maybe we can have subhuman AGI that can do lots o…

> For a long time I have tried to comfort myself that brains are complicated, AI is hard, and maybe there's just a complexity barrier...

I wouldn't take any comfort from that. Quite the opposite — I think we're a lot simpler than we know.

But "60% chance of AGI by 2030" is just bullshit numbers.

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

#233

Post by bbor »

peepee1982 wrote: post #128
bbor wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No. I don't. But some percentage of people don't really benefit that much from education as other people. And I wouldn't won't those people feel useless because it's more economical to replace them with bots instead of giving them something to do regardless.

Fair enough - you’re clearly an empathetic person and I appreciate the sentiment. Dropping the whole side issue of what “the ability to benefit from education” is or how innate it might be: my main concern was that this sounds like you want to invent new jobs for those people.

Why not… not have jobs? In your opinion, is a job necessary for one to have “purpose”?

Edit: also side note but telling people they’re “triggered” because they disagree with you comes off as condescending IMO

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

#234

Post by epups »

osigurdson wrote: post #220
poulpy123 wrote: post #209

I can't wait to become completely useless and to finish my life under a bridge begging for food. On a more technical point of few I'm always surprised to read these articles and never read the work reasoning

That seems like an unlikely future reality. Productivity will be off the charts, goods and services will be nearly free. Why would the average person be poor in such a future?

Because if productivity can be achieved with less people, and even intellectual work is not protected from machines, people will become redundant for the creation of economic value.

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

#235

Post by JKCalhoun »

tkgally wrote: post #99
thom wrote: post #93

I don't want to be an utter bore, but 60% chance of AGI by 2030, taken at face value, would have prompted me as an interviewer to more urgently ask deeper questions about safety. For a long time I have tried to comfort myself that brains are complicated, AI is hard, and maybe there's just a complexity barrier that is going to prevent any sort of hard takeoff scenario. Maybe we can have subhuman AGI that can do lots o…

My reaction, too. For an interview as long and wide-ranging as that one, the lack of any mention of safety or ethical issues stood out. And the potential impact on employment was just waved away with “I am confident that the sum total of value and progress in humanity will accelerate extraordinarily with welcoming artificial beings into our community of working on things.”

That's kind of what we (collective "we" — eggheads) are often accused of: blinders, tunnel vision, or perhaps even ego or callousness to develop these things in spite of the rather dystopian ramifications.

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

#236

Post by the_gipsy »

poulpy123 wrote: post #207
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…

As soon as we reach real AI, even at the level of a 5 years old, it is game over. So education or not education people will become completely useless to the rich that will own the AI

Useless? They still have to buy all that crap that is currently sold to them.

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

#237

Post by JKCalhoun »

jhoelzel wrote: post #62

As someone who works in IT for 20 years but has a bachelor in economic psychology, i do believe that we have not solved AGI yet because the creators of the models have the generalized view of the universe that you are "one person" and there are just so many detailed facets to that. Basically the assumption is that if you cram enough data into your gpt model, it should know everything. Which is of course not true, it…

Street-smart AI.

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

#239

Post by capitalsigma »

qbasic_forever wrote: post #194
ddevault wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice how the goal for artificial general AI (which is literally defined as a sentient artificial being) is to commoditize it and enslave it to capitalism.

It's funny that all of these weird fantasies people have about AI are about replacing the rank and file workers. Why isn't anyone fantasizing about building an AI that out-performs the best stock traders, or captains an industry better than famous CEOs. I think a lot of it is just people projecting weird power fantasies on others.

Stock traders already use ML models. "Replacing traders with ML models" means "making the job 'trader' into a job that develops ML models, rather than more traditional things like doing research on companies (or whatever)." My understanding is that this transition basically already happened over the course of the last two decades or so.

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

#240

Post by random314 »

WoodenChair wrote: post #114
random314 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is not an accurate account of how he said he developed his knowledge base. I quoted him directly, because I was expecting this kind of response. He took a week off and implemented some stuff from the ground up and was ready to have serious conversations with AI researchers. The 40 papers by Ilya came later. I have read a 100 ML papers and reviewed preprints. That's quite a low bar, especially if you are prone…

> The 40 papers by Ilya came later. I have read a 100 ML papers and reviewed preprints. I would say it’s more likely John Carmack is capable of learning the state-of-the-art of AI from 40 papers than a random (pun intended based on username) from 100.

Sure, he must be faster than Geoff Hinton too and it took Hinton a life time.

Funnily enough, I am able to publish ML papers - but John Carmack isn't. I wonder why. I would also like to learn more about all the computer graphics algorithms Carmack has invented before I trust him to invent AGI.

Here is one example of a person I am familiar with - Math Olympiad bronze medalist. Princeton PhD in ML Theory. AI researcher in Google.

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=gZgQLkgAAAAJ&hl=en

Sadly enough, nobody seems to care about his opinion on AGI but we have 1000s of people hanging off Carmacks words because he built Wolf3D and Doom.

Post reply on HN