541–550 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My mind went to Q learning.
Ok so maybe nothing to do with A*, but actually a way for GPT-powered models or agents to learn through automated reinforcement learning. Or something. I wonder if DeepMind is working on something similar also. If your hunch is right, this could lead to the type of self-improvement that scares people.
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.
Exactly. The rational fear is that they will automate many lower middle class jobs and cause unemployment, not that Terminator was a documentary.
If I had to guess, the name Q* is pronounced Q Star, and probably the Q refers to Q values or estimated rewards from reinforcement learning, and the star refers to a search and prune algorithm, like A* (A star). Possibly they combined deep reinforcement learning with self training and search and got a bot that could learn without needing to ingest the whole internet. Usually DRL agents are good at playing games, but…
Given the topic they were excited about was "basic math problems being solved" it immediately indicated to me as well that this is a completely separate approach and likely in the vein of DeepMind's focus with things like AlphaZero. In which case it's pretty appropriate to get excited about solving grade school math if you were starting from scratch with persistent self-learning. Though with OpenAI's approach to rele…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How HN continues to not expand current progress into any decently significant future timeline is beyond me. It’s grade school math NOW. But what are the potentials from here?
The potential to have a generation of dumb kids. Year 2100: Kids will stop to learn maths and logic, because they understand it has become useless in practice to learn such skills, as they can ask a computer to solve their problem. A stupid generation, but one that can be very easily manipulated and exploited by those who have power.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you ask Ilya Sutskever he will say your kids head is full of neurons, so is LLMs. LLMs comsume training data and can then be asked questions. How different is that to your son watching YouTube and then answering questions? It's not 1:1 the same,yet, but it's in the neighborhood.
To continue on this. LLMs are actually really good at asking questions even about cutting edge research. Often, I believe, convincing the listener that it understands more than it goes
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But they didn’t hit the panic button. They said Sam lied to them about something and fired him.
According to this article Sam has been telling the board that this new advance is not AGI and not anything to worry about (so they can keep selling it to MSFT), then the researchers involved went behind Sam's back and reported to the board directly, claiming that they'd created something that could-maybe-be AGI and it needs to be locked down. That's the claim at least.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair! But I'm just reminding the comment above that continued employment is not really guaranteed for most jobs which are mostly mental.
We need to stop this infinite rights mentality. Why should continued employment be guaranteed for any jobs? That’s really not how we got to where we are today, quite the opposite actually. If it ok with people I’d like to seen humans solve big problems and go to the stars and that’s going to take AGI and a bunch of technological progress and if that results in unemployment, even for us “elite” coders, then so be it.…
if 30% of the working population loses their jobs in a few months there will be real externalities impacting the 70% who still have them because they don't exist in a vacuum.
maybe everything will balance itself out without any intervention eventually but it feels to me like the rate of unprecedented financial ~events~ is only increasing and with greater risks requiring more intervention to prevent catatastrophe or large scale suffering
I still don't really know how they're measuring AGI. They all seem very sure about it, does someone have a good definition? OpenAI just say "AI systems that are generally smarter than humans". That's not measurable. What will it look like when AGI is achieved?
Recursive self-improvement.
Remember, about a month ago Sam posted a comment along the lines of "AI will be capable of superhuman persuasion well before it is superhuman at general intelligence, which may lead to very strange outcomes". The board was likely spooked by the recent breakthroughs (which were most likely achieved by combining transformers with another approach), and hit the panic button. Anything capable of "superhuman persuasion",…
Except that there's a fairly large body of evidence that persuasion is of limited use in shifting political opinion. So the persuasion would need to be applied to something other than some sort of causative political-implication-laden argument.
I feel very comfortable saying, as a mathematician, that the ability to solve grade school maths problems would not be at all a predictor of ability to solve real mathematical problems at a research level. The reason LLMs fail at solving mathematical problems is because: 1) they are terrible at arithmetic, 2) they are terrible at algebra, but most importantly, 3) they are terrible at complex reasoning (more specifica…
I agree that in and of itself it's not enough to be alarmed. Also i have to say i don't really know what grade school mathematics means here(multiplication? Proving triangles are congruent?). But I think the question is, whether the breakthrough is an algorithmic change in reasoning. If it is, then it could challenge all 4 of your limitations. Again this article is low on details so really we are arguing over our bes…
My point is that no technology which can solve grade school maths problems would be viewed as a breakthrough by anyone who understood the problem. The fundamental problems which need to be solved are not problems you encounter in grade school mathematics. The article is just ill-informed.