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

461–470 of 506 posts

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

#461

Post by jasmer »

93po wrote: post #447
jasmer wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My god man 'this is like slavery' (!!) and 'the ethnical issues'. It's software man. Stop it with this 'AGI' nonsense and even 'AI'. Let's call it 'adaptive algorithms' and see it for what it is, just a neat bit of algebra trained on corpus data. The biggest upset in the industrial revolution was the harnessing of fossil fuels, nothing will ever come close to that. We have not had a problem with 'employment' ever sin…

Stop calling humans intelligent, they're just a bunch of neurons responding to stimulus.

touché

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

#462

Post by lostmsu »

foobarqux wrote: post #460
lostmsu wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that you don't understand how GPT models language does not make it less of a model. It did learn the syntax, you are just incapable to grasp the formula it represents.

> The fact that you don't understand how GPT models language does not make it less of a model. It did learn the syntax, you are just incapable to grasp the formula it represents. The whole point of science is understanding and LLMs don't provide understanding of how human language works.

This is a pseudophilosophical mumbo-jumbo. It does not really address the comment you replied to, because it does not contradict any of the following statements (from which my original point trivially follows):

1. Chomsky claimed syntax can't be modeled statistically.

2. GPT is a nearly perfect statistical model of syntax.

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

#463

Post by chaostheory »

coffeebeqn wrote: post #373
chaostheory wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Industries tend to coalesce into a few centralized locations. New York and LA are known for fashion. Detroit, TN, and TX are known for automobile manufacturering. LA and Nashville are known for music. Tech isn’t any different. Isn’t Shreveport more known for natural resource extraction ie oil and gas?

That’s where Carmack and Romero started

It’s an outlier and an anomaly. My point stands for the reasons above.

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

#464

Post by idle_zealot »

nullc wrote: post #455
unsupp0rted wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps or perhaps not. Turning off a person for long enough and thus depriving them of the chance to live in their own time with their existing family and friends is comparable to murder. It isn't murder, but it's comparable. At some point Picard in Star Trek says to an alien "We're not qualified to be your judges. We have no law to fit your crime". Turning off a person for a while and then turning them back on? We…

I think I don't agree simply because the irreversibility of murder is so central to it. For example, if I attack you and injure you so severely that you are hospitalized and in traction for months, but eventually fully recover -- that is a serious crime but it is distinct and less serious than murder. Turning you off for the same duration would be more like that but without the suffering and potential for lasting phy…

I think we actually do have something of a comparison we can draw here. It'd be like kidnapping a person and inducing a coma through drugs. With the extra wrinkle that the person in question doesn't age, and so isn't deprived of some of their lifespan. Still a very serious crime.

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

#465

Post by jhoelzel »

lostmsu wrote: post #392
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.

so we are both agreeing on the same thing? :D

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

#466

Post by ace_of_spades »

I find the tone and collective mindset expressed in this article deeply unsettling. We are talking about developing technology that is going to be the foundation and a huge challange for the longterm development of the human race and people are overtly stating that they are working on this because they perceive this to be a shot at making trillions of dollars. I mean, what the fuck, how can money be the right motivator here? This technology would change everything about what it means to be human and we do it because „we can make money“? This is so shortsighted it’s almost tragically laughable. And we as a society worship people talking this way as somekind of heropreneuers. Like anyone alive today would be able to do anything without all the people supporting our continent crossing supply chains that are crazy environmentally destructive and allround unsustainable.

Sorry for this rant but come we can do better than this!

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

#467

Post by unsupp0rted »

idle_zealot wrote: post #464
nullc wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I don't agree simply because the irreversibility of murder is so central to it. For example, if I attack you and injure you so severely that you are hospitalized and in traction for months, but eventually fully recover -- that is a serious crime but it is distinct and less serious than murder. Turning you off for the same duration would be more like that but without the suffering and potential for lasting phy…

I think we actually do have something of a comparison we can draw here. It'd be like kidnapping a person and inducing a coma through drugs. With the extra wrinkle that the person in question doesn't age, and so isn't deprived of some of their lifespan. Still a very serious crime.

Plus everybody else does age, so the damage done isn't just depriving them of freedom, it's depriving them after they wake up of the life they knew. Some functional equivalent of the death of personality, to the degree personality is context-dependent (which it is).

Now me: I'd love to get into a safe stasis pod and come out 200 years from now. I'd take that deal today.

But for most people this would be a grievous injury.

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

#468

Post by goatlover »

falcor84 wrote: post #387
goatlover wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of procedural knowledge. Robotics is lagging behind deep learning advances, and it's unclear when robots would be cheaper than human labor in those areas. How expensive would a robot plumber be? Also skills that are valued when humans perform them.

>skills that are valued when humans perform them Is this a real thing? I just bought an ice cream roulade cake the other day and was surprised to see in large print that it was "hand-rolled"; I couldn't for the love of god understand why that should be considered a good thing.

I was thinking more of fields where enough people would rather pay to watch a human perform, serve them, teach or provide care. Despite superhuman computer chess play, human chess remains popular. The same would remain true for most sports, lots of music and acting, higher end restaurants and bars, the doctor or dentist you know, etc. Sometimes you prefer to interact with a human, or watch the human drama play out on screen.

I can also imagine that wanting to speak to a human manager will remain true for a long time when people get fed up with the automated service not working to their liking, or just want to complain to a flesh and blood someone who can get irritated.

A fully automated society won't change the fact that we are social animals, and the places that pffer human work when it's desired will be at a premium, because they can afford it.

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

#469

Post by lostmsu »

jhoelzel wrote: post #465
lostmsu wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

so we are both agreeing on the same thing? :D

Conceptually, no. For me your statement sounds like it says we did not solve flight, because our planes have to land.

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

#470

Post by serverholic »

kmoser wrote: post #458
serverholic wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can’t just say that a human comes from a gigabyte of information. That info is fed into a massively complex physical system, which he is ignoring.

Yes, this is where Carmack's optimism goes awry. He says: "...as soon as you’re at the point where you have the equivalent of a toddler—something that is a being, it’s conscious, it’s not Einstein, it can’t even do multiplication—if you’ve got a creature that can learn, you can interact with and teach it things on some level." He's wrong. There is currently no practical way to produce a software system that possesses…

I don’t think he actually cares about mimicking humans, I think he just wants a truly intelligent AI system that can learn in a sophisticated way like humans do.

I think that’s actually pretty doable. Take for example flying. We don’t build airplanes that flap their wings because we have a deeper understanding of flight that allows us to build flying machines far beyond the capabilities of any animal.

Likewise, once we understand the mechanics of intelligence we should be able to build something that can learn that is completely computer based.

Post reply on HN