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

501–506 of 506 posts

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

#501

Post by lostmsu »

foobarqux wrote: post #485
lostmsu wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I argue to get some non-contradictory worldview. Re: meaningfulness. Your scientific vs engineering model distinction is not how "scientific model" is defined. It includes both. The existence of the model itself does explain something, specifically, that statistics can model language. That alone is explanatory power, so the claim that it doesn't explain anything is a lie. Therefore it is both an "engineering" model (…

Science is about understanding the natural world, if you want to redefine it to mean something else fine but the point still stands: LLMs do not explain anything about the natural world, specifically anything about the human language faculty. Again it's clear you do not care about this! Instead you want to spend time arguing to make sure labels you like are applied to things you like.

Look, I answered this one already:

> the fact that you don't understand how GPT models language does not make it less of a model.

E.g. the fact that a Pythagorean theorem does not explain anything about the natural world to a slug does not make Pythagorean theorem any less sciency.

Science is not about explanatory power or else the Pythagorean theorem is not science due to the above, which is obviously nonsense.

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

#502

Post by CatWChainsaw »

olau wrote: post #123
thom wrote: post #93

I don't want to be an utter bore, but 60% chance of AGI by 2030, taken at face value, would have prompted me as an interviewer to more urgently ask deeper questions about safety. For a long time I have tried to comfort myself that brains are complicated, AI is hard, and maybe there's just a complexity barrier that is going to prevent any sort of hard takeoff scenario. Maybe we can have subhuman AGI that can do lots o…

Lex Fridman interviewed Carmack not too long ago. Lex is interested in these things, and did ask him about safety. I got the impression that greater societal concerns didn't interest Carmack much. He's in it to built an AGI because that's what he wants to do, he's a builder and this is just about the most interesting thing you could build. Well, that was my impression, but you can watch the interview yourself.

It always pisses me off that devs trot out the whole "scientists, could, should" line without having any iota of self-reflection.

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

#503

Post by CatWChainsaw »

dsign wrote: post #96

Unpopular idea, but I hope it's only a matter of time before we declare involving with AGI a criminal endeavor, just as it is playing with biological weapons. Because we can't all be wrong: in almost every forecast, we see AGIs taking over our dignity as a bad thing. And we know that this is not any longer a sci-fi hypothetical scenario: the current generation of AI models is taking jobs from illustrators and copy wr…

IMO this is the thing that sends us over the cliff.

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

#504

Post by peepee1982 »

brutusborn wrote: post #24
peepee1982 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Education is great, but it can go only so far. We will always have to find things to do for the less gifted in order to provide them with some dignity. Even if they are not strictly needed for reasons of productivity or profitability. Anything else would be inhumane.

People can find their own outlets if given the basic necessities and enough time. I fear this attitude will lead to job programs where people work a 9-5 and achieve essentially nothing, I.e. bullshit jobs.

You can, and I can.

You'd be surprised how many people would just drink themselves to metaphorical or literal death.

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

#505

Post by peepee1982 »

brutusborn wrote: post #360
milsorgen wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>People can find their own outlets if given the basic necessities and enough time. This has not been my experience. People need something to do but not many people know that about themselves. It leads to a lot of... 'wasteful' behaviors, rather than enriching ones. I think it's going to be something that has to be taught to people, a skill like any other. Albiet a little more abstract than some.

There definitely has to be a cultural shift but I think the shift can’t truly happen until most things are automated. There needs to be a critical mass of people who are fully devoted to their interests, currently there is too much demand for labour and so dedicating your time to your interests is alien to most people. When the value of labour approaches zero for most people, work becomes pointless and something must…

Many people don't have interests.

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

#506

Post by foobarqux »

lostmsu wrote: post #501
foobarqux wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science is about understanding the natural world, if you want to redefine it to mean something else fine but the point still stands: LLMs do not explain anything about the natural world, specifically anything about the human language faculty. Again it's clear you do not care about this! Instead you want to spend time arguing to make sure labels you like are applied to things you like.

Look, I answered this one already: > the fact that you don't understand how GPT models language does not make it less of a model. E.g. the fact that a Pythagorean theorem does not explain anything about the natural world to a slug does not make Pythagorean theorem any less sciency. Science is not about explanatory power or else the Pythagorean theorem is not science due to the above, which is obviously nonsense.

> E.g. the fact that a Pythagorean theorem does not explain anything about the natural world to a slug does not make Pythagorean theorem any less sciency.

In fact it does! Math is not science! There is a reason it is STEM and not S

Post reply on HN