281–290 of 387 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My bet is on Carmack.
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. People often fall into the trap of thinking that because they are highly intelligent and an expert in one domain that this makes them an expert in one or more other domains. You see this all the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My bet is on Carmack.
What has he shipped in the last 20 years? Oculus is one thing, but that was firmly within his wheelhouse of graphics optimization. Abrash and co. handled the hardware side of things. Carmack is a genius no doubt. But genius is the result of intense focused practice above and beyond anyone else in a particular area. Trying to extend that to other domains has been the downfall of so many others like him.
Funnily enough Romero himself didn't ship much either. IMO it's one of the most iconic "duo breakups". The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
His goal was not just to solve Atari games. That was already done. His goal is to develop generic methods. So you could work with more complex games or the physical world for that, as that is what you want in the end. However, his insight is, you can even modify the Atari setting to test this, e.g. to work in realtime, and the added complexity by more complex games doesn't really give you any new additional insights…
But how is this different to what NVIDIA have already done? They have robots that can achieve arbitrary and fluid actions in the real world by training NNs in very accurate GPU simulated environments using physics engines. Moving a little Atari stick around seems like not much compared to sorting through your groceries etc. The approach NVIDIA are using (and other labs) clearly works. It's not going to be more than a…
But also, he argues a lot about sample efficiency. He wants to develop algorithms/methods/models which can learn much faster / with much fewer data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing about Carmack in the 90s... There was a lot of research going on around 3d graphics. Companies like SGI and Pixar were building specialized workstations for doing vector operations for 3d rendering. 3d was a thing. Game consoles with specialized 3d hardware would launch in 1994 with the Sega Saturn and the Sony Playstation (in Japan only for one year) What Carmack did was basically get a 3d game running on…
> If DOOM released in 1994 or 1995, would we still remember it in the same way? Maybe. One aspect of Wolfenstein and Doom's popularity is that it was years ahead of everyone else technically on PC hardware. The other aspect is that they were genre defining titles that set the standards for gameplay design. I think Doom Deathmatch would have caught on in 1995, as there really were very few (just Command and Conquer?)…
Interesting reply from an openai insider: https://x.com/unixpickle/status/1925795730150527191
Funny, I was just commenting something similar here, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44071614 And I say this while most certainly not being as knowledgeable as this openai insider. So it even I can see this, then it's kinda bad, isn't it?
Interesting reply from an openai insider: https://x.com/unixpickle/status/1925795730150527191
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From chess to Go to Atari games, AI research has always been about games. You are unintentionally positioning yourself as more sophisticated than a huge number of AI luminaries, including Nobel and Turing winners.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you give an example how it would be transformative compared to specialized AI?
Because it could very well exceed our capabilities beyond our wildest imaginations. Because we evolved to get where we are, humans have all sorts of messy behaviours that aren't really compatible with a utopian society. Theft, violence, crime, greed - it's all completely unnecessary and yet most of us can't bring ourselves to solve these problems. And plenty are happy to live apathetically while billionaires become t…
If AGI is created it is most likely to be guided by someone like Altman or Musk, people whose interests couldn't be farther from what you describe. They want to make themselves gods and couldn't care less about random plebs.
If AGI is setting its own principles then I fail to see why it would care about us at all. Maybe we'll be amusing as pets but I expect a superhuman intelligence will treat us like we treat ants.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My bet is on Carmack.
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. People often fall into the trap of thinking that because they are highly intelligent and an expert in one domain that this makes them an expert in one or more other domains. You see this all the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My bet is on Carmack.
"Graphics Carmack" is a genius but that doesn't mean that "AI Carmack" is too.
He's also admitted he doesn't have much of math chops, which you need if you want to make a dent in AI. (Although the same could have been said of 3D graphics when he did Wolfenstein and Doom, so perhaps he'll surprise us)
I wish him well TBH