Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

John Carmack talk at Upper Bound 2025

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–387 of 387 posts

Re: John Carmack talk at Upper Bound 2025

#381

Post by leoc »

handsclean wrote: post #231
epr wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually no, it's not interesting at all. Vague dismissal of an outsider is a pretty standard response by insecure academic types. It could have been interesting and/or helpful to the conversation if they went into specifics or explained anything at all. Since none of that's provided, it's "OpenAI insider" vs John Carmack AND Richard Sutton. I know who I would bet on.

It seems that you’ve only read the first part of the message. X sometimes aggressively truncates content with no indication it’s done so. I’m not sure this is complete, but I’ve recovered this much: > I read through these slides and felt like I was transported back to 2018. > Having been in this spot years ago, thinking about what John & team are thinking about, I can't help but feel like they will learn the same les…

I'm not sure what the moral is from this, but if Atari games are just too easy, at the same time the response of the machine-learning guys to the challenge of the NetHack Learning Environment seems to have mostly been to quietly give up. Why is generative modeling essential to finding harder challenges when NetHack is right there ...?

Re: John Carmack talk at Upper Bound 2025

#383

Post by fennecfoxy »

fennecfoxy wrote: post #241
charcircuit wrote: post #217

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…

He he, too many comments to reply to. I see reactions in the same vein as those I get when I tell people it should be illegal to own a second/"holiday" home given the terrible housing markets preventing people from getting just one.

Well, I guess we shall see what the future brings, won't we.

Re: John Carmack talk at Upper Bound 2025

#384

Post by fennecfoxy »

Jensson wrote: post #248
fennecfoxy wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans are the ceiling at the moment yes, but that doesn't mean the ceiling isn't higher. Science is full of theories that are correct per our current knowledge and then subsequently disproven when research/methods/etc improves. Humans aren't special, we are made from blood & bone, not magic. We will eventually build AGI if we keep at it. However unlike VCs with no real skills except having a lot of money™, I couldn'…

Question was if cobbling together enough special intelligence creates general intelligence. Monkeys has a lot of special intelligence that our current AI models can't come close to, but still aren't seen as general intelligence like humans, so there is some little bit humans has that isn't just another special intelligence.

I guess the answer to that is that we don't know yet. I will be interesting to see if human intelligence/the way our brains work (which we certainly don't understand at all yet) is the only way to do intelligence or if models will eventually end up doing something novel.

Re: John Carmack talk at Upper Bound 2025

#387

Post by Flamentono2 »

akomtu wrote: post #193
Flamentono2 wrote: post #112

I find it interesting that he dismisses LLMs. I would argue that if he wants to do AGI through RL, a LLM could be a perfect teacher or oracle. After all i'm not walking around as a human and not having guidance. It should/could make RL a lot faster leveraging this. My logical part / RL part does need the 'database'/fact part and my facts are trying to be as logical as possible but its just not.

IMO, he's right. LLMs can't be AI because they don't create a model of observations to predict things, they just imitate observations based on their likeness to each other. When you play Quake, you create a simple model of the game physics and use that fast model to navigate the game. Your equivalent of LLM has a role too: it's a fuzzy detector of things you encounter in the game, sounds, images and symbols, but once…

Yes but the LLM could tell the physics system that it is physics related.

Hey look you see a stone falling

Post reply on HN