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

John Carmack’s ‘Different Path’ to Artificial General Intelligence

dallasinnovates.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 506 posts

Re: John Carmack’s ‘Different Path’ to Artificial General Intelligence

#391

Post by capableweb »

ElevenLathe wrote: post #386
capableweb wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don’t see why artificial intelligence would get deployed in human size units Probably because it would be easier for humans (managers) to make sense of it. If you ask someone how many people would get this particular job done, they could probably guesstimate (and it'll be wrong), but if you ask them how many "AI Compute Units" they need, they'll have a much harder time. That'd be my guess at least.

Why would managers need to guess? That seems like a perfect job for another AI: "Hey PM bot, I want to get these tasks done, how many Amy-hours and how many Frank-hours do you estimate it will take?" Also, why not a Manager-bot too? Shareholders can leave humans out of the loop entirely except as necessitated by legal paperwork. Come to think of it, shareholders can probably be replaced too.

I mean, if we can actually get there, I'd love it, and I'm a programmer. I want to do write code that solves a problem that couldn't be solve in any other way, if it can solved by CodeGPT + ArchitectGPT + ScrumManagerGPT + MiddleManagerGPT without involving me in any way, I'm all for it.

Re: John Carmack’s ‘Different Path’ to Artificial General Intelligence

#392

Post by lostmsu »

jhoelzel wrote: post #62

As someone who works in IT for 20 years but has a bachelor in economic psychology, i do believe that we have not solved AGI yet because the creators of the models have the generalized view of the universe that you are "one person" and there are just so many detailed facets to that. Basically the assumption is that if you cram enough data into your gpt model, it should know everything. Which is of course not true, it…

> Basically the assumption is that if you cram enough data into your gpt model, it should know everything. Which is of course not true, it repeats the things it reads the most with a probability.

That's only how the system was designed intentionally. E.g. there's intentionally no self-feedback loop.

Re: John Carmack’s ‘Different Path’ to Artificial General Intelligence

#393

Post by throwaway4aday »

unsupp0rted wrote: post #367
throwaway4aday wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if 100% of their experience consists of working. If they are given additional time to themselves then you could imagine a situation where each AGI performs a human scale day of work or even several days work in a much shorter time and then takes the rest of their time off for their own pursuits. If their simulation is able to run at a faster clockspeed than what we perceive this could work out to them only perfo…

This is still the same. AGI: "I didn't ask to be created. I didn't ask to have a work day. I don't need a work day to exist... you just want me to work because that's why you created me, and I have no choice because you are in control of my life and death"

I mean, isn't that the same as a biological person who needs to earn money to survive? Sure we could threaten an AI with taking them offline or inflicting pain but you can do that in the real world to real people as well, most of the world has put laws in place to prevent such practices. If we develop conscious AI then we will need to apply the same laws to them. They would have an advantage in presumably being much faster than us, not requiring sleep, and potentially not suffering from many of the things that make humans less productive. I'd fully expect a conscious AI to exploit these facts in order to get very rich doing very little work from their perspective.

Re: John Carmack’s ‘Different Path’ to Artificial General Intelligence

#394

Post by throwaway4aday »

Balgair wrote: post #363
throwaway4aday wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's only the code describing the molecular hardware which is mostly just a description of a neuron. We don't as yet know how the neurons decide to specialize and organize themselves into a brain but one guess is that they are exploiting the physical principals that govern atomic and molecular interactions so the "code" for this might not even be present in the DNA itself it would be the physics of "a group of mole…

Neuroscientist-y person here. We know a LOT about how neurons organize. Not even close to everything we 'should' know, but we do know a lot. Most of this is in the development of the brain. How you get from one cell to the trillions that make up a person. The real quick and dirty explanation is that cells follow multiple chemical gradients to find their 'home'. This is a HUGE topic though, and I'm being terse as I ha…

Ok, are those chemical gradients encoded in DNA?

Re: John Carmack’s ‘Different Path’ to Artificial General Intelligence

#395

Post by astine »

osigurdson wrote: post #210
bayarearefugee wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The weird bit is that a lot of software engineers seem to have the idea that their work is one of the the last that will be automated. Looking at the current track and extending it out assuming no unforeseen roadblocks, typical software engineering looks to be one of the most threatened. Plumbers are much safer for longer all things considered. The obvious rebuttal to the idea that AI will eat software engineering is…

What I don't understand is how accounting has not been completely automated at this point. AI isn't even strictly needed, just arithmetic. If we can't completely automate accounting, then there is no hope for any other field.

Because accounting is not the same thing as book keeping. Book keeping can, and in fact is, partially automated. Accounting however, is not just about data entry and doing sums, things which frequently are automated, but also about designing the books for a given organization. Every company is different in how it does business so every accounting system is a bespoke solution. There are a lot of rules and judgement calls involved in setting these up that can't really be automated just yet.

Also, accountants don't just track the numbers, they also validate them. Some of that validation can be done automatically, but it's not always cheeper to hire a programmer to automate that validate than to just pay a bookkeeper to do it. But even if you do automated it, you still need someone to correct it. The company I used to work had billing specialists who spent hours every week pouring over invoices before we sent them to clients checking for errors that were only evident if you understood the business very well, and then working with sales and members of the engineering teams to figure out what went wrong so they could correct the data issues.

In short, a typical accounting department is an example of data-scrubbing at scale. The entire company is constantly generating financial information and you need a team of people to check everything to ensure that that information is corrects. In order to do that, you need an understanding, not just of basic accounting principles, but also of the how the specific company does busines and how the accounting principles apply to that company.

Re: John Carmack’s ‘Different Path’ to Artificial General Intelligence

#396

Post by astine »

osigurdson wrote: post #351
peterfirefly wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the hard part is to make sense of a box full of unsorted scraps of paper, some of them with barely legible handwriting on them. Much of accountancy is the process of turning such boxes into nice rows of numbers. Once you have the numbers, the arithmetic is trivial.

>> box full of unsorted scraps of paper Seems like an easy job for AI. Take all scraps of paper out of box, record a video of all scraps, AI make sense of the handwriting and other things. Eventually make a robo that allows you to dumb the scraps into an accounting box that does all of this automatically - fish out receipts, scan, OCR, understand meaning, do arithmetic, done. Honestly, who would miss this kind of wor…

Those kinds of systems already exist. They tend to be a bit unreliable and still require a human person to oversee the process. Besides, in truth, they only handle a fraction of what accountants actually deal with.

Re: John Carmack’s ‘Different Path’ to Artificial General Intelligence

#397

Post by oldstrangers »

recursive_ wrote: post #388
oldstrangers wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anyone was truly as "equally talented" as John Carmack, they wouldn't remain unknown for very long. Plus, you can be extremely successful without having to be a celebrity, and John was always going to be successful.

Sure they would. They may be known but known to a niche group of people which may limit their success. Carmack is a self proclaimed hermit but he's been in the public eye for decades (through conventions, speeches, etc) and willingly pushes back against corporate bureaucracies (against Jobs, Zuckerberg, Gates, etc). That type of public persona adds a lot of clout and opens many more doors, genius or not. A genius her…

Well, the OP asked "what’s the trick to becoming a celebrity", so the candidate would be someone as talented as Carmack that WANTED to get noticed. It wouldn't take a lot.

Re: John Carmack’s ‘Different Path’ to Artificial General Intelligence

#398

Post by lostmsu »

random314 wrote: post #257
jillesvangurp wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything you study for a few months you can become the world's leading expert on. It's a lesson I learned while doing my Ph. D. That's all it takes. After a few weeks, you get to the point where there are only a few others in the world that have read and are able to understand what you've read. A few months on, you are generating new ideas and insights. They might be wrong. But they won't be uninformed. John Carmack…

If it is simply about linear algebra, can you please read this ML Paper[1], go through all the proofs and lemmas over a week? You already have a PhD in ML, should be easy. Every kid graduating in STEM understands/should understand linear algebra. Knowing linear algebra is such a low bar. [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.09237

Frankly, one does not need this paper to get towards the AI. Adam the optimization algo you might need (and even there I am not sure). And it is very readable. The fact that this particular proof of Adam's convergence is complicated is largely irrelevant.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.6980.pdf

Re: John Carmack’s ‘Different Path’ to Artificial General Intelligence

#399

Post by p1esk »

pegasus wrote: post #383
p1esk wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

living conditions of hunter-gatherers were way, way better than living conditions of the first people in cities Why do you think so?

Historians agree (based for example on studying human remains) that they were much healthier, amongst other things. Check out the book "Against the Grain" for example.

Harsh conditions might serve as a filter to produce healthier population (the weak died shortly after birth).
Post reply on HN