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

31–40 of 92 posts

Re: Neural Network Diffusion

#31

Post by rdedev »

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…

Even if recursive self improvement does work out my hunch is that is going to be logarithmic instead of exponential mostly down to just availability of data. It might go beyond human intelligence but I don't think it will reach singularity

Re: Neural Network Diffusion

#32

Post by xanderlewis »

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.

‘Doing the work of a human’ is something that is very hard to define or quantify in many cases. You sound very confident, but you don’t address this at all; you simply assume it’s a given.

Relevant: https://www.jaakkoj.com/concepts/doorman-fallacy

Re: Neural Network Diffusion

#33

Post by advael »

xanderlewis wrote: post #32
killerstorm wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

‘Doing the work of a human’ is something that is very hard to define or quantify in many cases. You sound very confident, but you don’t address this at all; you simply assume it’s a given. Relevant: https://www.jaakkoj.com/concepts/doorman-fallacy

Yea, I think we're in kind of a vicious recursive cycle of imperfect-metric-reinforcement (reward-hacking I suppose, though often implemented in economics as well as code) rather than one of recursive self-improvement in a more holistic sense. Optimization is really good at turning small problems of this nature into big ones more quickly

Re: Neural Network Diffusion

#34

Post by astrange »

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…

> Is there a law of thermodynamics which prevents AI from writing code which would train a better AI?

You need to apply Wittgenstein here.

This appears to be true because you haven't defined "better". If you define it, it'll become obvious that this is either false or true, but if it is true it'll be obvious in a way that doesn't make it sound interesting anymore.

(For one thing our current "AI" don't come from "writing code", they just come from training bigger models on the same data. For another, making changes to code doesn't make it exponentially better, and instead breaks it if you're not careful.)

> I guess people working there believe in magic.

Yes, OpenAI was literally founded by a computer worshipping religious cult.

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

Humans don't have a "recursive self-improvement" ability.

Also not obvious that an AI that was both "aligned" and "capable of recursive self-improvement" would choose to do it; if you're an AI and you're making a new improved AI, how do you know it's aligned? It sounds unsafe.

Re: Neural Network Diffusion

#35

Post by spangry »

pests wrote: post #21
GuB-42 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Physics.

Re: Neural Network Diffusion

#36

Post by Tenobrus »

astrange wrote: post #34
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…

> Is there a law of thermodynamics which prevents AI from writing code which would train a better AI? You need to apply Wittgenstein here. This appears to be true because you haven't defined "better". If you define it, it'll become obvious that this is either false or true, but if it is true it'll be obvious in a way that doesn't make it sound interesting anymore. (For one thing our current "AI" don't come from "writ…

it is very clear to me that humans do in fact have a recursive self-improvement ability, and i'm confused why you think otherwise

Re: Neural Network Diffusion

#37

Post by drdeca »

pests wrote: post #21
GuB-42 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Some sort of "generate descriptions of novel tasks including ways to evaluate performance at those tasks, evaluate quality of the generated tasks+evaluation-metrics, split tasks into subtasks, estimate difficulty of tasks in a way that is is judged on how it compares to a combined estimated difficulty of generated subtasks and to actual success rate and quality" sort of deal?

Re: Neural Network Diffusion

#40

Post by astrange »

Tenobrus wrote: post #36
astrange wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is there a law of thermodynamics which prevents AI from writing code which would train a better AI? You need to apply Wittgenstein here. This appears to be true because you haven't defined "better". If you define it, it'll become obvious that this is either false or true, but if it is true it'll be obvious in a way that doesn't make it sound interesting anymore. (For one thing our current "AI" don't come from "writ…

it is very clear to me that humans do in fact have a recursive self-improvement ability, and i'm confused why you think otherwise

I think people can read books (self improvement) and have children (recursive), but neither of those are both.
Post reply on HN