OpenAI researchers warned board of AI breakthrough ahead of CEO ouster

Post by Davidzheng » Thu, Nov 23, 2023, 7:44 AM UTC

riku_iki wrote: post #656

Davidzheng wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True. But a human neuron is more complex than an AI neuron by a constant factor. And we can improve constants. Also you say years like it's a lot of data--but they can run RL on chatgpt outputs if they want, isn't it comparable? But anyway i share your admiration for the biological thinking machines ;)

> human neuron is more complex than an AI neuron by a constant factor constant still can be not reachable yet: like 100T neurons in brain vs 100B in chatgpt, and also brain can involve some quantum mechanics for example, which will make complexity diff not constant, but say exponential.

Post by n6242 » Thu, Nov 23, 2023, 7:46 AM UTC

white_dragon88 wrote: post #517

cduzz wrote: post #316

I was talking to my (12 year old) son about parts of math he finds boring. He said that he thinks absolute value is absurdly easy and extremely boring. I asked him if there was anything that might make it more interesting, he said "maybe complex numbers". So I asked him "what would the absolute value of i+1 be?" he thinks for a little bit and says "square root of 2" and I ask him "what about the absolute value of 2i…

Your son is a goddamn genius.

Post by auggierose » Thu, Nov 23, 2023, 7:52 AM UTC

visarga wrote: post #624

raincole wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But he also has the incentive to exaggerate the AI's ability. The whole idea of double-blind test (and really, the whole scientific methodology) is based on one simple thing: even the most experienced and informed professionals can be comfortably wrong. We'll only know when we see it. Or at least when several independent research groups see it.

> even the most experienced and informed professionals can be comfortably wrong That's the human hallucination problem. In science it's a very difficult issue to deal with, only in hindsight you can tell which papers from a given period were the good ones. It takes a whole scientific community to come up with the truth, and sometimes we fail.

Post by parentheses » Thu, Nov 23, 2023, 7:53 AM UTC

oezi wrote: post #679

poulpy123 wrote: post #667

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know for Q* of course, but all the tests I made with GPT4, and all what I've read and seen about it, show that it is unable to reason. It was trained with an unfathomable amount of data, so it can simulate reasoning very well, but it is unable to reason

What is the difference between simulating reasoning very well and "actual" reasoning?

Post by riku_iki » Thu, Nov 23, 2023, 7:54 AM UTC

dmix wrote: post #267

adriand wrote: post #258

This article is almost entirely unsourced, citing two anonymous people who are “familiar” with a supposed letter that Reuters has not seen. This does not qualify as news. It doesn’t even rise to the level of informed speculation!

We've also already seen one random Google AI 'safety' employee trying to tell the media that AGI is here because Google built a chatbot that sounded convincing, which obviously turned out to be bullshit/hysterical. Asking who said these things is as important as asking what they think is possible.