Live data from Hacker News

The Intelligence Age

ia.samaltman.com

331–340 of 447 posts

Re: The Intelligence Age

#331
post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure you know that people in the AI community have been predicting big things ever since, I don't know, the 1970s? It's only 10 years away again. This time it's for real, right?

Is GPT-4 not a “big thing in AI”?

It's extremely spicy autocomplete and it burns astonishing amounts of natural resources to reach even that lofty peak

Re: The Intelligence Age

#332

> If a lamplighter could see the world today, he would think the prosperity all around him was unimaginable None of that shared prosperity was freely given by the Sam Altmans of the world, it was hard won by labor organizers and social movements. Without more of that, the progress from AI will continue the recent trend of wealth accumulating in the hands of a few. The idea that everyone will somehow prosper equally f…

Labor organizers mostly make things worse for laborers. Capitalism has brought much prosperity. "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest"

> Labor organizers mostly make things worse for laborers

Nonsense, unless you're prepared to argue that the existence of weekends is "much worse" than working every day.

Re: The Intelligence Age

#333
As an aside:

> in an important sense, society itself is a form of advanced intelligence

This made me think of Charles Stross' observation that Corporations (and bureaucracies and basically any rule-based organizations) are a form of artificial intelligence.

https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2019/12/artific...

Come to think of it, the whole article is rather pertinent to this thread.

Re: The Intelligence Age

#334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing I was thinking about was live translation. We gotta be near the stage where I can take earbuds with me to Spain and hear what the locals are saying in English? There's already apps that are pretty good at "talk to it and it hears the words, prints them, and prints the translation", so it would seem to be close?

Whisper and a bit of Python code (and a text2speech model) can already do this. At my day job we have Whisper live-translate all-hands calls for the non-native speakers in the audience. It's incredibly good.

> Whisper and a bit of Python code (and a text2speech model) can already do this.

How do I do this?

Re: The Intelligence Age

#335
post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not here to defend sama, but certain things cannot be proven until they arrive - they can only be extrapolated from existing observations and theoretical limits. Imagine the Uranium Committee of early 40's, where Szilard and others were babbling about 10kg of some magical metal exploding briefly with the power of a sun, with the best evidence being some funky trail in an alcohol vapor chamber. Maybe sama is right…

Hah, atomic power is a great point of comparison: people in the "atomic age" expected atomic power to be everywhere. Electricity too cheap to measure, cars/planes/appliances all powered by small nuclear reactors... That's without going into the real nonsense like radium toothpaste. And here we are today where nuclear energy is limited to nuclear weapons, a small set of military vehicles and <10% of the world's electr…

Last I checked the giant nuclear fusion reactor in the sky is driving an substantial increase in solar energy.

The toothpaste and similar products were pretty ill advised, vaseline and uranium glass are still collectable and are seeing a ressurrence of new interest: https://old.reddit.com/r/uraniumglass/

Re: The Intelligence Age

#336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost certainly true, and all the people crapping all over his description should really take a step back and consider that. He isn't out on some island all by himself here.

Universal approximation doesn't mean we've got (or ever will) algorithms to learn good enough models for any problem and the resources to run them, just that those models conceptually exist.

If you read what he wrote closely, he doesn't claim what you just claimed. Read it word for word:

"humanity discovered an algorithm that could really, truly learn any distribution of data (or really, the underlying “rules” that produce any distribution of data). To a shocking degree of precision, the more compute and data available, the better it gets at helping people solve hard problems"

He's an optimistic guy, no doubt, but he isn't full of shit.

Re: The Intelligence Age

#337
post #150

> If we want to put AI into the hands of as many people as possible, we need to drive down the cost of compute and make it abundant (which requires lots of energy and chips). If we don’t build enough infrastructure, AI will be a very limited resource that wars get fought over and that becomes mostly a tool for rich people. Translation for the rest of us: "we need to fully privatize the OA subsidiary and turn it into…

This is so true, resource management and infrastructure are going to be the bottlenecks

Re: The Intelligence Age

#338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taking it a step further, building that infrastructure may contribute somewhat directly to limiting the other resources actual wars are being fought over. This man needs to get out of his own head.

I think it’s misunderstanding the guy’s whole deal to expect truth or reality to be major factors in his writing. “Sell, sell, sell!” is the goal above all else. Sell whatever he’s invested in today. Sell himself. Sell!

You’re honestly convinced that he’s faking this level of futurism? I’m happy to see people call him wrong, maybe even defend him on a few point, but calling him dishonest on this central point seems irrational. Ditto for someone I personally have absolutely 0 respect for: Elon Musk. They are both honestly convinced that AI is incredibly important in the short-medium term, IMO - they just want to own the fix and be the hero.

Re: The Intelligence Age

#339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's amazing how he can imagine wars being fought over AI but not wars being fought over resources needed to "build enough infrastructure."

> he can imagine wars being fought over AI I wonder how did he come to such a prediction. When was the last time we had a war over advanced tech? Armies didn't fight over telegraph, radio, phones and cars. A war to get AI would also be foolish. A few hundred bombs from your adversaries and AI won't have electricity to function.

You have to look at the late 1800s for examples. It won’t be wars over data centres and winning won’t be simple or even possible. It would look like the wars that the U.S. Army fought against indian tribes or like the British, French, German and Dutch colonization of Africa. That is assuming there is an AI side and a non-AI side. Incidentally those conflicts did involve a lot of strategic infrastructure like railways and telegraph lines.

Fighting the expansionary actions of an AI enabled culture will not be as simple as bombing power plants, after all those are prime targets in any modern war and are well defended. How do you propose to win against an entire bloc of countries that have decided to use the products of AI to do whatever they wish with the world?

Re: The Intelligence Age

#340
post #230

> humanity discovered an algorithm that could really, truly learn any distribution of data (or really, the underlying “rules” that produce any distribution of data) He's hand-waving around the idea presented in the Universal Approximation Theorem, but he's mangled it to the point of falsehood by conflating representation and learning. Just because we can parameterize an arbitrarily flexible class of distributions doe…

You’re (both!) getting into metaphysics without necessarily realizing it. He’s just saying that a machine that could learn any pattern—not a sub pattern of accidental actualities that it overfits on, but the real virtual pattern driving some set of phenomena—would be a game changer. Sure, there are infinite things that can’t be reduced to polynomials, but something tells me that a whole lot of things that matter to us are, across the fields of Physics, Biology, Sociology and Neurology especially.

Basically it’ll be (and already has been since the quantum breakthroughs in the 1920s, to some extent) a revolution in scientific methods not unlike what Newton and Galileo brought us with physical mechanics: this time, sadly, the mechanics are beyond our direct comprehension, reachable only with statistical tricks and smart guessing machines.

Post reply on HN