411–420 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Makes me wonder if they stumbled onto some emergent behavior with the new Assistants API. You can have an Assistant thread spawn other Assistant threads, each with their own special instructions, plus the ability to execute custom code, reach out to the internet for other data and processing as needed, etc. Basically kicking off a hive mind that overcomes the limitations of a single LLM.
Given the name (Q*) it's probably pure RL.
Put this on my tombstone after the robots kill me or whatever, but I think all “AI safety” concerns are a wild overreaction totally out of proportion to the actual capabilities of these models. I just haven’t seen anything in the past year which makes me remotely fearful about the future of humanity, including both our continued existence and our continued employment.
That itself is extremely dangerous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there is enough there to make me believe it's real. After all, a big objection to LLMs is they are just "fancy autocomplete" or "stochastic parrots". I don't agree, but LLMs famously are "bad at math", that is you can't really train them to do math unless they've seen previous calculations with similar numbers in their training sets. Training an AI system to truly do arbitrary mathematical logic (think "compl…
Mathematical logic doesn’t refer to ‘complex word problems with big numbers’. The reason that LLMs struggle (well, are hopeless currently) with mathematics problems is not because it involves arithmetic (although this is already enough of a struggle) but because it requires a conceptual understanding of the ideas rather than just being about manipulating language — a lot of the goings-on are hidden in the semantic wo…
Yes, that's exactly the point I was trying to make. I just used the example of "complex word problems with big numbers" to differentiate from just normal mathematical statements that any programming language (i.e. deterministic algorithm) can execute.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The moment I read about that clause I was shocked that Microsoft lawyers would agree to such subjectivity that can have incredibly expensive implications. Were they expecting it to never happen and were just ready to throw a mountain of lawyers at any claim?
The OpenAI charter makes very strong soecific statements about the capabilities that qualify as AGI. Microsoft is more than legally talented enough to challenge any proclamation of AGI that didn't satisfy a court's read of the qualifications. So it's facially subjective, but not practically once you include resolving a dispute in court. I'd even argue that Microsoft may have taken advantage of the board's cult-like b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The OpenAI charter makes very strong soecific statements about the capabilities that qualify as AGI. Microsoft is more than legally talented enough to challenge any proclamation of AGI that didn't satisfy a court's read of the qualifications. So it's facially subjective, but not practically once you include resolving a dispute in court. I'd even argue that Microsoft may have taken advantage of the board's cult-like b…
Funny thing though, if OpenAI achieved something close to strong AGI, they could use it to beat Microsoft's "mountain of lawyers" in court ! Take this as a true test of AI capability (and day zero of the end of the world).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they are just "fancy autocomplete" or "stochastic parrots". I don't agree I am curious as to why you don't agree. Is that not exactly what they are? As in, they are literally statistically parroting what they've been trained on. If they're trained on a little, they can only parrot a little. If they're trained on a lot, they can parrot a lot but not anything more.
Because it gives a bad analogy relating to what their capabilities actually are. I've asked it to write fairly complex programs for me, and I'm blown away by what it's capable of. It's reasonable to assume, especially when "emergent behaviors" only show up after tons and tons of training and parameters (i.e. Scaling_laws_and_emergent_abilities) that in order to actually get good at "autocomplete", that the model has…
While a "reasonable assumption", it's the kind of "reasonable assumption" that a diligent scientist would formulate hypotheses on and perform experiments to confirm before building a XX-billion dollar research programme that hinges on that assumption. But unfortunately for the rest of us who have to watch them complicate access to a useful technology, many high-profile AI researchers are not diligent scientists building a corpus of knowledge but impassioned alchemists insisting that they're about to turn lead to gold.
This has been refuted. https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/22/23973354/a-recent-openai...
This isn't a refute. All we can say now is that there are conflicting sources. There isn't a way to determine which one is correct based on this.
This almost feels like the confirmation bias that some religious people have where they see a “miracle” in everything. These AI researchers have bought into the belief that superhuman AGI is right around the corner. Thus, they will interpret everything in light of that. This also brings to mind the story of the Googler who was convinced that the internal Google AI had come alive. However, Bard doesn’t give the same v…
How can you know that AGI is not around the corner? Compute available to the corporations is already in a ballpark of some estimates of the brain's computational capacity. What's left is unknown unknows. And the researches working with the state of the art models have better info to estimate them than you.
"The googler" you've mentioned wasn't a researcher.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like the board's mission went off the rails long ago and it acted late. Some snippets from the OpenAI website... "Investing in OpenAI Global, LLC is a high-risk investment" "Investors could lose their capital contribution and not see any return" "It would be wise to view any investment in OpenAI Global, LLC in the spirit of a donation, with the understanding that it may be difficult to know what role money will…
I can't find these quotes (especially the post-AGI world quote) on their site.
Weirdly enough, this sort of lines up with a theory posted on 4chan 4 days ago. The gist being that if the version is formally declared AGI, it can't be licensed to Microsoft and others for commercial gain. As a result Altman wants it not to be called AGI, other board members do. Archived link below. NB THIS IS 4CHAN - THERE WILL OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE. https://archive.ph/sFMXa