481–490 of 567 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is commoditisation of models incompatible with AGI?
If we can solve 99% of the world's problems with current non-AGI models then nobody besides a select few will care about AGI
Earlier quoted context omitted.
without taking down prod even 1% of the time Literally every major company that has embraced AI coding has suffered devastating downtime this year as a direct result of AI induced failures.
Wasn't writing about major companies. That's obviously next, if we follow the trend lines.
The only companies sticking with AI at this point are the major players who have chasing their masssive overinvestments to the bitter end, crappy coding shops, and for some reason Starbucks and they'll all suffering badly in a year their customers begin demanding massive amounts of human coding to repair all the issues with the AI code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An important adjacent point is the same people that are insisting that only their research can stop intelligent manipulative computers from controlling the human race are also some of the few people who believed that OpenAI was a philanthropic endeavour and that Sam Bankman Fried was trustworthy...
I'm not seeing any claims to exclusivity. I'm seeing people actively encouraging more people to enter the field of AI safety/security and openness to robust debate, etc. I agree that there seems to be a huge problem with value drift--either people who used to research AI safety, pivoting to building AI (looking at Anthropic) or people who only ever paid lip service to safety (I tend to put Musk and Altman in this cat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The current year is 2026. I think it's quite likely AI will make the top 3 by then. Putting this on my calendar.
Yes, I can't predict the future, but if it were a bet on Kalshi I'd be willing to put my money on the AI won't make the list side.
I'm sure some people will have issue with my phrasing but, honest question: Are there examples of where we have collective decided not to pursue knowledge? Successfully? I guess nuclear weapons might be the best example though research doesn't seem have to actually "stopped" as much as gone underground and we still have country trying to climb that ladder. But I don't know how relevant that is to LLMs/AI. It almost f…
A successful example of reigning in progress: electric bicycles intentionally speed limited for safety
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not clear that "super intelligence" is a meaningful concept. This presumes that our concept of intelligence can continue to grow beyond human capacity as opposed to asymptotically approaching what humans recognize as "very intelligent". Perhaps, for instance, how we evaluate intelligence is bounded not by some quantitative capacity but rather our inability to agree on basic concepts/values. And do we even have t…
The Orthogonality Thesis (by Nick Bostrom) says that intelligence and ultimate goals are independent. Those non-instrumental goals can’t be stupid nor right or wrong. Increasing intelligence will not change the goals only the capability to reach them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't seem at all strange to me that a chatbot trained by true believers in an AI singularity and the importance of safety guardrails will give more satisfying answers to true believers in an AI singularity and the importance of safety guardrails than talking to humans who might ask questions they're not prepared to answer (or might say nasty sceptical things or just not seem interested) As for "updating priors"…
OK. Anyhow ... if there's a cognitive task you are personally superior to Fable at, let us know.
The biggest issue with 2027 was that it didn't understand the economy. For AI2027 to be real, the money has to come from somewhere to carry on building the economy. If >10% of the workers suddenly become unemployed, and the rest taking paycuts, then money supply dries up. (unless central banks do something, but then that can be highly inflationary) Without massive amounts of investment, AI development stops dead. In…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's strange to me about these comments is they're timeless. They could have been written in 2026 or 2016 or 1966. Like, afaict, for many on HN going from ELIZA->Fable 5 just didn't cause any update to priors regarding this whole philosophical question. The argument against has remained unchanged. I don't see any point in arguing about it, I just find it very strange.
It's a form of denial. We're getting another "de-thronement of man" on the order of Copernicus and Darwin. Some get excited, others turn away in horror. Negation is the outward expression of the desire to keep human intelligence wrapped in its mystical veil. One popular idea is that these systems will asymptotically approximate human intelligence because they're trained on mostly human-written texts. Not only is that…
Most human systems are much, much, much more complicated than most closed world games (which is where RL approaches have seen massive success, mostly through self-play).
Like LLMs are great, but I honestly can't see us getting actual general intelligence out of them.