631–640 of 641 posts
Seems very sinophobic. Deepseek and Manus have shown that China is legitimately an innovation powerhouse in AI but this article makes it sound like they will just keep falling behind without stealing.
I think we've actually had capable AIs for long enough now to see that this kind of exponential advance to AGI in 2 years is extremely unlikely. The AI we have today isn't radically different from the AI we had in 2023. They are much better at the thing they are good at, and there are some new capabilities that are big, but they are still fundamentally next-token predictors. They still fail at larger scope longer ter…
They still can't tell how many Rs in Strawberry
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an interesting question, but it seems at least possible that as long as the fundamental operation is simply "generate tokens", that it can't go beyond being just a form of next-token prediction. I don't think people were thinking of human thought as a stream of tokens until LLMs came along. This isn't a very well-formed idea, but we may require an AI for which "generating tokens" is just one subsystem of a la…
But that means any AI that just talks to you can't be AI by definition. No matter how decisively the AI passes the Turing test, it doesn't matter. It could converse with the top expert in any field as an equal, solve any problem you ask it to solve in math or physics, write stunningly original philosophy papers, or gather evidence from a variety of sources, evaluate them, and reach defensible conclusions. It's all ju…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the same way that human brains are just predicting the next muscle contraction.
Potentially, but I'd say we're more reacting. I will feel and itch and subconsciously scratch it, especially if I'm concentrating on something. That's an subsystem independent of conscious thought. I suppose it does make sense - that our early evolution consisted of a bunch of small, specific background processes that enables an individual's life to continue; a single celled organism doesn't have neurons but exactly…
I also think the difference between primitive brains and conscious, reasoning, high level brains could be more quantitative than qualitative. I certainly believe that all mammals (and more) have some sort of an internal conscious experience. And experiments have shown that all sorts of animals are capable of solving simple logical problems.
Also, related article from a couple of days ago: Intelligence Evolved at Least Twice in Vertebrate Animals
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's my belief (and I'm far from the only person who thinks this) that many AI optimists are motivated by an essentially religious belief that you could call Singularitarianism. So "wishful thinking" would be one answer. This document would then be the rough equivalent of a Christian fundamentalist outlining, on the basis of tangentially related news stories, how the Second Coming will come to pass in the next few ye…
This is a letter signed by the most lauded AI researchers on Earth, along with CEOs from the biggest AI companies and many other very credible professors of computer science and engineering: "Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war." https://www.safe.ai/work/statement-on-ai-risk Laughing it off as the same as the Seco…
Would be a shame to have energy consumption by datacenters regulated, am I right ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Potentially, but I'd say we're more reacting. I will feel and itch and subconsciously scratch it, especially if I'm concentrating on something. That's an subsystem independent of conscious thought. I suppose it does make sense - that our early evolution consisted of a bunch of small, specific background processes that enables an individual's life to continue; a single celled organism doesn't have neurons but exactly…
I feel like the barrier between conscious and unconscious thinking is pretty fuzzy, but that could be down to the individual. I also think the difference between primitive brains and conscious, reasoning, high level brains could be more quantitative than qualitative. I certainly believe that all mammals (and more) have some sort of an internal conscious experience. And experiments have shown that all sorts of animals…
I'm not sure about the quantitative thing seeing as there are creatures with brains much physically much larger than ours, or brains with more neurons than we have. We currently have the most known synapses though that also seems to be because we haven't estimated that for so many species.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>All of these "projections" are generalizing from fictional evidence - to borrow a term that's popular in communities that push these ideas. This just isn't correct. Daniel and others on the team are experienced world class forecasters. Daniel wrote another version of this in 2021 predicting the AI world in 2026 and was astonishingly accurate. This deserves credence. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6Xgy6CAf2jqHhynHL/…
>2025:...Making models bigger is not what’s cool anymore. They are trillions of parameters big already. What’s cool is making them run longer, in bureaucracies of various designs, before giving their answers. Dude was spot on in 2021, hot damn.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a letter signed by the most lauded AI researchers on Earth, along with CEOs from the biggest AI companies and many other very credible professors of computer science and engineering: "Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war." https://www.safe.ai/work/statement-on-ai-risk Laughing it off as the same as the Seco…
Troubling that these eminent great leaders does not cite climate change among societal-scale risks, a bigger and more certain societal-scale risk than a pandemy. Would be a shame to have energy consumption by datacenters regulated, am I right ?
Perhaps they were trying to avoid any possible misunderstanding/misconstrual (there are misinformed people who don't believe in global warming).
In terms of avoiding all nitpicking, I think everyone that's not criminally insane believes in pandemics and nuclear bombs.
> Once the new datacenters are up and running, they’ll be able to train a model with 10^28 FLOP—a thousand times more than GPT-4. Is there some theoretical substance or empirical evidence to suggest that the story doesn't just end here? Perhaps OpenBrain sees no significant gains over the previous iteration and implodes under the financial pressure of exorbitant compute costs. I'm not rooting for an AI winter 2.0 but…
https://gwern.net/scaling-hypothesis exponential scaling has been holding up for more than a decade now, since alexnet. And when there were the first murmurings that maybe we're finally hitting a wall the labs published ways to harness inference-time compute to get better results which can be fed back into more training.
But let's take for granted that we are putting exponential scaling to good use in terms of compute resources. It looks like we are seeing sublinear performance improvements on actual benchmarks[1]. Either way it seems optimistic at best to conclude that 1000x more compute would yield even 10x better results in most domains.
[1]fig.1 AI performance relative to human baseline. (https://hai.stanford.edu/ai-index/2025-ai-index-report)
I think we've actually had capable AIs for long enough now to see that this kind of exponential advance to AGI in 2 years is extremely unlikely. The AI we have today isn't radically different from the AI we had in 2023. They are much better at the thing they are good at, and there are some new capabilities that are big, but they are still fundamentally next-token predictors. They still fail at larger scope longer ter…
We know they are developing more advanced models, and we know they're secretive about it, but how advanced?... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯