Live data from Hacker News

Andrej Karpathy – It will take a decade to work through the issues with agents

dwarkesh.com

331–340 of 1001 posts

Re: Andrej Karpathy – It will take a decade to work through the issues with agents

#331
post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why is there a presumption that we (as people who have only studied CS) know enough about biology/neuroscience/evolution to make these comparisons? Hubris.

The hubris here isn't CS people making comparisons, it's assuming biological substrate matters. Your brain is doing computation with neurotransmitters instead of transistors. So what? The "chemicals not electricity" distinction is pure carbon chauvinism, like insisting hydraulic computers can't be compared to electronic ones because water isn't electricity. Evolution didn't discover some mystical process that imbues…

This seems naively dismissive of arguments around substrates considering that playing "Go at superhuman levels" took 1MW of energy versus the 1-2 (or if you want to assume 100% of the brain was applied to the game, 20) watts consumed by the human brain.

Re: Andrej Karpathy – It will take a decade to work through the issues with agents

#332
post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hubris here isn't CS people making comparisons, it's assuming biological substrate matters. Your brain is doing computation with neurotransmitters instead of transistors. So what? The "chemicals not electricity" distinction is pure carbon chauvinism, like insisting hydraulic computers can't be compared to electronic ones because water isn't electricity. Evolution didn't discover some mystical process that imbues…

> Your brain is doing computation with neurotransmitters instead of transistors If it is, sure. But this isn't a given. We don't actually understand how the brain computes, as evidenced by our inability to simulate it. > Evolution didn't discover some mystical process that imbues meat with special properties Sure. But the complexity remains beyond our comprehension. Against the (nearly) binary action potential of a t…

Jonas & Kording showed that neuroscience methods couldn't reverse-engineer a simple 6502 processor [0]. If the tools can't crack a system we built and fully documented, our inability to simulate brains just means we're ignorant, not that substrate is magic. It also doesn't necessarily say great things for neuroscience!

And "who said this?"... come on. Searle, Dreyfus, thirty years of "syntax isn't semantics," all the hand-wringing about how machines can't really understand because they lack intentionality. Now systems pass those benchmarks and suddenly it's "well nobody serious ever thought that mattered." This is the third? fourth? tenth? round of goalpost-moving while pretending the previous positions never existed.

Pointing at "multidimensional electrochemical complexity" is just phlogiston with better vocabulary. Name something specific transformers can't do?

[0] https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/jo...

Re: Andrej Karpathy – It will take a decade to work through the issues with agents

#334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah that "model of the world" would mean: babies are already born with "the model of the world" but a lot of experiments on babies/young kids tell otherwise

It's a lot more complicated than that. You have instincts, right? Innate fears? This is definitely something passed down through genetics. The Hawk/Goose Effect isn't just limited to baby chickens. Certainly some mental encoding passes down through genetics as how much the brain controls, down to your breathing and heartbeat. But instinct is basic. It's something humans are even able to override. It's a first order a…

One of the biggest mysteries of humans Vs LLMs is that LLMs need an absurd amount of data during pre training, then a little bit of data during fine tuning to make them behave more human. Meanwhile humans don't need any data at all, but have the blind spot that they can only know and learn about what they have observed. This raises two questions. What is the loss function of the supervised learning algorithm equivalent? Supposedly neurons do predictive coding. They predict what their neighbours are doing. That includes input only neurons like touch, pain, vision, sound, taste, etc. The observations never contain actions. E.g. you can look at another human, but that will never teach you how to walk because your legs are different from other people's legs.

How do humans avoid starving to death? How do they avoid leaving no children? How do they avoid eating food that will kill them?

These things require a complicated chain of actions. You need to find food, a partner and you need to spit out poison.

This means you need a reinforcement learning analogue, but what is going to be the reward function equivalent? The reward function can't be created by the brain, because it would be circular. It would be like giving yourself a high, without even needing drugs. Hence, the reward signal must remain inside the body but outside the brain, where the brain can't hack it.

The first and most important reward is to perform reproduction. If food and partners are abundant, the ones that don't reproduce simply die out. This means that reward functions that don't reward reproduction disappear.

Reproduction is costly in terms of energy. Do it too many times and you need to recover and eat. Hunger evolved as a result of the brain needing to know about the energy state of the body. It overrides reproductive instincts.

Now let's say you have a poisonous plant that gives you diarrhea, but you are hungry. What stops you from eating it? Pain evolves as a response to a damaged body. Harmful activities signal themselves in the form of pain to the brain. Pain overrides hunger. However, what if the plant is so deadly that it will kill you? The pain sensors wouldn't be fast enough. You need to sense the poison before it enters your body. So the tongue evolves taste and cyanide starts tasting bitter.

Notice something? The feelings only exist internally inside the human body, but they are all coupled with continued survival in one way or another. There is no such thing for robots or LLMs. They won't accidentally evolve a complex reward function like that.

Re: Andrej Karpathy – It will take a decade to work through the issues with agents

#335
post #292
post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this a useful challenge to our normal way of thinking. At the same time, "the world" exists only in our imagination (per our brain). Therefore, if LLMs need a model of a world, and they're trained on the corpus of human knowledge (which passed through our brains), then what's the difference, especially when LLMs are going back into our brains anyway?

Language isn't thought. It's a representation of thought.

Are the particles that make up thoughts in our brain not also a representation of a thought? Isn't "thought" really some kind of Platonic ideal that only has approximate material representations? If so, why couldn't some language sentences be thoughts?

Re: Andrej Karpathy – It will take a decade to work through the issues with agents

#336
post #292
post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this a useful challenge to our normal way of thinking. At the same time, "the world" exists only in our imagination (per our brain). Therefore, if LLMs need a model of a world, and they're trained on the corpus of human knowledge (which passed through our brains), then what's the difference, especially when LLMs are going back into our brains anyway?

Language isn't thought. It's a representation of thought.

Something to think about (hah!) is there are people without an internal monologue i.e. no voice inside their head they use when working out a problem. So they're thinking and learning and doing what humans do just fine with no little voice no language inside their head.

Re: Andrej Karpathy – It will take a decade to work through the issues with agents

#337
post #36

It's funny how there's such a pervasive cynicism about AI in the developer community, yet everyone is still excited about vibe coding. Strange times...

What developer is excited about "vibe coding"? The only people excited about "vibe coding" are people who can't code.

...and all developers use Macs, live in SF, and deploy to AWS.

Re: Andrej Karpathy – It will take a decade to work through the issues with agents

#338

People keep talking about AGI as if it's some mystical leap beyond human capability. But let's be honest; software development at a modern startup is already the upper bound of applied intelligence. You're juggling shifting product specs, ambiguous user feedback, legacy code written by interns, and five competing JS frameworks, all while shipping on a Friday. Models can now do that. They can reason about asynchronous…

LLMs have continually taught me that we have vastly overestimated human intelligence

Re: Andrej Karpathy – It will take a decade to work through the issues with agents

#339
post #27

Whenever someone brings up "AI", I tell them AI is not real AI. Machine learning is a more apt buzzword. And real AI is probably like fusion. Its always 10 years away.

The best part of this is I watched Sam Altman say he really thinks fusion is a short period of time away in response to a question about energy consumption a couple years ago. That was the moment I knew he's a quack.

Fusion is 8 light-minutes away. The connection gets blocked often, so methods to buffer power for those periods are critical, but they're getting better so it's gotten a lot more practical to use remote fusion power at large scales. It seems likely that the power buffering problem is easier to solve than the local fusion problem, so more development goes to improving remote fusion power than local.

Re: Andrej Karpathy – It will take a decade to work through the issues with agents

#340
post #188

I remember attending a lecture from a famous quantum computing researcher in 2003. He said that quantum computing is 15-20 years away and then he followed up by saying that if he told anyone it was further away then he wouldn't get funding!

And now (useful) quantum computing is 5 years away! Has been for a few years, too.

Any day now.
Post reply on HN