421–430 of 430 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> GPT 5.2 after crunching 12 hours mathematical formulas supervised and prompted by 4 experts in the field Yet, if some student or child achieved the same – under equal supervision – we would call him the next Einstein.
Yes and if a 1 year old could multiply 1357329 by 28384743, I'd be impressed and yet I still wouldn't be impressed by a calculator doing it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're assuming there aren't "new things" latent inside currently existing information. That's definitely false, particulary for math/physics. But it's worth thinking more about this. What gives humans the ability to discover "new things"? I would say it's due to our interaction with the universe via our senses, and not due to some special powers intrinsic to our brains that LLMs lack. And the thing is, we can feed n…
No it isn't false. If it is new it is novel, novel because it is known to some degree and two other abstracted known things prove the third. Just pattern matching connecting dots.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> modern LLMs are incredibly capable, and relentless, at solving problems that have a verification test suite. Feel like it's a bit what I tried to expressed few weeks ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46791642 namely that we are just pouring computational resources at verifiable problems then claim that astonishingly sometimes it works. Sure LLMs even have a slight bias, namely they do rely on statistics so i…
That's also what most grad students are doing. Even in the unlikely case they completely stop improving, it's still a massive deal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you ever thought about the fact that 2 years ago AI wasn't even good enough to write code. Now it's good enough. Right now you state the current problem is: "requiring my constant supervision and frequent intervention and always trying to sneak in subtle bugs or weird architectural decisions" But in 2 years that could be gone too, given the objective and literal trendline. So I actually don't see how you can hol…
That's easy. When LLMs are good enough to fully replace me and my role in the society (kind of above-average smart, well-read guy with university education and solid knowledge of many topics, basically like most people here) without any downsides, and without any escape route for me, we'll probably already be at the brink of a societal collapse and that's something I can't really prepare for or even change.
More people need to be upfront about this reasoning. Instead of building irrational scaffolds saying AI is not a threat. AI is a threat, THAT is the only rational conclusion. Give the real reason why you're not worried.
That is what one of the author says. This doesn't quite fit to the headline of the post.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To think that whatever the AI is capable of solving is (and forever will be) the frontier of all problems is deeply delusional. AI got good at generating code, but it still can't even do a fraction of what the human brain can do. AGI means fully general, meaning everything the human brain can do and more. I agree that currently it still feels far (at least it may be far), but there is no reason to think there's som…
When I refer to AI, I mean the "AI" that has materialized thus far - LLMs and their derivatives. AGI in the sense that you mean is science fiction, no less than it was 50 years ago. It might happen, it might not, LLMs are in all likelihood not a pathway to get there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I don't think anyone has a plausible theory that goes to this level of detail on how humans actually think, there's still a major difference. I think it's fair to say that if we are doing a brute force search, we are still astonishingly more energy efficient at it than these LLMs. The amount of energy that goes into running an LLM for 12h straight is vastly higher than what it takes for humans to think about si…
In the research group I am, we have usually try a few approach to each problem, let's say we get a: Method A) 30% speed reduction and 80% precision decrease Method B) 50% speed reduction and 5% precision increase Method C) 740% speed reduction and 1% precision increase and we only publish B. It's not brute force[1], but throw noodles at the wall, see what sticks, like the GP said. We don't throw spoons[1], but everyt…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
$200/month would cover many such sessions every month. The real question is, what does it cost OpenAI? I'm pretty sure both their plans are well below cost, at least for users who max them out (and if you pay $200 for something then you'll probably do that!). How long before the money runs out? Can they get it cheap enough to be profitable at this price level, or is this going to be "get them addicted then jack it up…
No because open source models are close behind Compute costs will fall drastically for existing models But it's likely that frontier models of the future won't be released to the public at all, because they'll be too good
Benchmarks are one thing, real world performance is very different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Always moving targets. They never surrender.
"They're moving the goalposts" is increasingly the autistic shrieking of someone with no serious argument or connection to reality whatsoever. No one cares about how "AGI" or whatever the fuck term or internet-argument goalpost you cared about X months ago was. Everyone cares about what current tech can do NOW, and under what conditions, and when it fails catastrophically. That is all that matters. So, refining the c…
I'm just saying that AI critics like to say that they don't like AI, and to prove their point they constantly move up their definition of "good enough", and when and AI reaches that objective, they change their definition of good enough.