571–580 of 608 posts
Or software engineers are not coachmen while AI is diesel engine to horses. Instead, software engineers are mistrels -- they disappear if all they do is moving knowledge from one place to another.
Ultimately, AI is meant to replace you, not empower you. 1 - This exoskeleton analogy might hold true for a couple more years at most. While it is comforting to suggest that AI empowers workers to be more productive, like chess, AI will soon plan better, execute better, and have better taste. Human-in-the-loop will just be far worse than letting AI do everything. 2 - Dario and Dwarkesh were openly chatting about how…
Robotics is solved. Software is solved. There is no task on the planet that cannot be automated, individually. The remaining challenge is exceeding the breadth of skills and the depth of problem solving available to human workers. Once the robots and AI can handle at least as many of the edge cases as humans can, they'll start being deployed alongside humans. Industries with a lot of capital will switch right away; m…
Who is paying taxes in this scenario
Ultimately, AI is meant to replace you, not empower you. 1 - This exoskeleton analogy might hold true for a couple more years at most. While it is comforting to suggest that AI empowers workers to be more productive, like chess, AI will soon plan better, execute better, and have better taste. Human-in-the-loop will just be far worse than letting AI do everything. 2 - Dario and Dwarkesh were openly chatting about how…
Let's pursue your idea a bit further. Up to a certain ELO level, the combination between a human and a chess bot has a higher ELO than both the human and the bot. But at some point, when the bot has an ELO vastly superior to the human, then whatever the human has to add will only subtract value, so the combination has an ELO higher than the human's but lower than the bot's. Now, let's say that 10 or 20 years down the…
Because AIs don't think.
Ultimately, AI is meant to replace you, not empower you. 1 - This exoskeleton analogy might hold true for a couple more years at most. While it is comforting to suggest that AI empowers workers to be more productive, like chess, AI will soon plan better, execute better, and have better taste. Human-in-the-loop will just be far worse than letting AI do everything. 2 - Dario and Dwarkesh were openly chatting about how…
1) We still retain a functional democracy and vote for UBI for ourselves.
2) Society fractionates into castes so the capital owners can maintain hierarchical control.
3) There’s the ruling class and the rest of us living hand to mouth and kept in line by an unassailable robot army forever.
4) If we manage to actually create ASI, there’s a chance we might get to an actual utopia with essentially limitless resources.
"It's not X, it's Y" detected.
Not sure how reliable is gptzero, but it says 90% AI for the first paragraph. (I like to do some sanity check before wasting my time). Would be nice to have some browser extension automatically detecting likely AI output using a local model and highlighting it, but probably too compute-intensive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Modern ML is old school mad science. The lifeblood of the field is proof-of-concept pre-prints built on top of other proof-of-concept pre-prints.
Sounds like you agree this “evidence” lacks any semblance of scientific rigor?
We're in the "mad science" regime because the current speed of progress means adding rigor would sacrifice velocity. Preprints are the lifeblood of the field because preprints can be put out there earlier and start contributing earlier.
Anthropic, much as you hate them, has some of the best mechanistic interpretability researchers and AI wranglers across the entire industry. When they find things, they find things. Your "not scientifically rigorous" is just a flimsy excuse to dismiss the findings that make you deeply uncomfortable.
Ultimately, AI is meant to replace you, not empower you. 1 - This exoskeleton analogy might hold true for a couple more years at most. While it is comforting to suggest that AI empowers workers to be more productive, like chess, AI will soon plan better, execute better, and have better taste. Human-in-the-loop will just be far worse than letting AI do everything. 2 - Dario and Dwarkesh were openly chatting about how…
Ok, I'll try to talk you out of it! > AI will soon plan better, execute better, and have better taste I think AI will do all these things faster , but I don't think it's going to be better . Inevitably these things know what we teach them, so, their improvement comes from our improvement. These things would not be good at generating code if they hadn't ingested like the entirety of the internet and all the open sourc…
Learning from prior knowledge doesn't mean being capped by it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love this optimistic take. Unfortunately, I believe the following will happen: By positioning themselves close to law makers, the AI companies will in the near future declare ownership of all software code developed using their software. They will slowly erode their terms of service, as happens to most internet software, step by step, until they claim total ownership. The point is to license the code.
AFAIK you can't copyright AI generated content. I don't know where that gets blurry when it's mixed in with your own content (ie, how much do you need to modify it to own it), but I think that by that definition these companies couldn't claim your code at all. Also, with the lawsuit that happened to Anthropic where they had to pay billions for ingesting copyrighted content, it might actually end up working the other…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dario admitted in the same interview that he's not sure whether current AI techniques will be able to perform well in non-verifiable domains, like "writing a novel or planning an expedition to Mars". I personally think that a lot jobs in the economy deal in non-verifiable or hard-to-verify outcomes, including a lot of tasks in SWE which Dario is so confident will be 100% automated in 2-3 years. So either a lot of tas…
he was not sure, but if i recall correctly, he put the probability at something like 90 percent of being able to do non verifiable tasks.
It's not based on anything but gut feeling, which is fine. Just state so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, let's chew on that. "reasonable mechanistic interpretability understanding" and "semantic" are carrying a lot of weight. I think nobody understands what's happening in these models -irrespective of narrative building from the pieces. On the macro level, everyone can see simple logical flaws.
> I think nobody understands what's happening in these models Quick question, do you know what "Mechanistic Interpretability Researcher" means? Because that would be a fairly bold statement if you were aware of that. Try skimming through this first: https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/NfFST5Mio7BCAQHPA/an-ex... > On the macro level, everyone can see simple logical flaws. Your argument applies to humans as well. Or a…
> Your argument applies to humans as well
Yeah, I'm talking about obvious and trivial errors that reveal lack of representation of the code. But your question did make me think, cheers.