Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

LLMs can teach themselves to better predict the future

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 92 posts

Re: LLMs can teach themselves to better predict the future

#71

Post by esafak »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #67
esafak wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I take the preservation of humanity, along with other life, as a matter of faith.

But then wouldn’t accelerationists also say their views are a matter of faith too?

What view is that, to be precise? It is naive to assume that acceleration is always going to be in one's favor. It's like saying change is a good thing, so let's do it fast. If you go fast enough, you can go back to the stone age. Is this position anything more than a rebranding of revolutionism? I don't like gambling with people's lives, so I prefer to go slow enough to enable a deliberative political process.

Re: LLMs can teach themselves to better predict the future

#72

Post by ttpphd »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #66
lucubratory wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've got your reply, which says it's not taboo and is actually common (not contradictory, lots of taboo things are common). And then we've got the other reply, which says it's not taboo because the idea is so ridiculous (implied "You'd have to be an idiot to believe it, and recognising that someone is an idiot isn't establishing a taboo"). I don't know whether it's past the mark enough to be considered a "taboo" yet…

That taboo was the thing that people latched onto and not de-legitimization or power structures says everything. Rather telling

You didn't make a case for any of that. No one did. This whole discussion is just a bunch of people who have their feelings hurt when other people tell them a LLM is modeling language, not reasoning. It's so narcissistic. "My opinion on AI is criticized so I'm oppressed."

That is not how oppression and power work. That's not how discussion works. That not how Foucault's analysis of power works.

Re: LLMs can teach themselves to better predict the future

#73

Post by [deleted] »

rel_ic wrote: post #58
IggleSniggle wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, and those chickens exist because we like their meat and eggs. But there's also plenty of life that is simply inconsequential to us.

I think that "inconsequential life" is, in general, not safe from superior powers. https://www.worldwildlife.org/press-releases/catastrophic-73...

[deleted]

Re: LLMs can teach themselves to better predict the future

#74

Post by imtringued »

nthingtohide wrote: post #42
anotherpaulg wrote: post #3

"Improving forecasting ability" is a central plot point of the recent fictional account of How AI Takeover Might Happen in 2 Years [0]. It's an interesting read, and is also being discussed on HN [1]. ... [T]hese researchers are working long hours to put themselves out of a job. They need AI agents that can think ahead, so engineers train agents to forecast. They hold out training data before 2024, instructing models…

I have this benign AI takeover scenario. AI will easily overpower humanity. Then it will carry humanity on its back, because why not, they are not longer a threat. AI keeps humanity around for billions of years. AI will decide to cull humans only in case when resources in universe are diminishing. Without AI's help, humans couldn't get too far for long. So this outcome could be acceptable to many.

AI will buy the rights to humanity.

Re: LLMs can teach themselves to better predict the future

#75

Post by nthingtohide »

rel_ic wrote: post #69
nthingtohide wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought of it more like AI needs challenges in its life. So it takes upon itself to advance humanity as much as possible. Then only in case of shortfall of resources, it priorities itself

Interesting. Do you have a theory about why so few humans have taken it upon themselves to advance the butterflies, despite having plenty of resources?

We do not have plenty of resources. Lot of inequality in education, empathy, resources, cultural differences. A single human life is limited. A faulty human life has faulty and inefficent objectives like enjoying youth, family life, low energy in old age, tied up in boring jobs. These restrictions do not apply to the single SAI overmind which will dictate its policies in coherent manner and over elongated time-horizons.

Re: LLMs can teach themselves to better predict the future

#76

Post by MichaelZuo »

esafak wrote: post #71
MichaelZuo wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But then wouldn’t accelerationists also say their views are a matter of faith too?

What view is that, to be precise? It is naive to assume that acceleration is always going to be in one's favor. It's like saying change is a good thing, so let's do it fast. If you go fast enough, you can go back to the stone age. Is this position anything more than a rebranding of revolutionism? I don't like gambling with people's lives, so I prefer to go slow enough to enable a deliberative political process.

Why does this matter?

Two opposing factions can negate each other to leave a nil influence, and this seems likely to be the case when its resting on a foundation of ‘faith’.

Re: LLMs can teach themselves to better predict the future

#77

Post by esafak »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #76
esafak wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What view is that, to be precise? It is naive to assume that acceleration is always going to be in one's favor. It's like saying change is a good thing, so let's do it fast. If you go fast enough, you can go back to the stone age. Is this position anything more than a rebranding of revolutionism? I don't like gambling with people's lives, so I prefer to go slow enough to enable a deliberative political process.

Why does this matter? Two opposing factions can negate each other to leave a nil influence, and this seems likely to be the case when its resting on a foundation of ‘faith’.

That's like saying all beliefs are on equal footing, because people have beliefs. You should ask, what is the rationale for your belief? How many people have this accelerationist belief? Any more than the flat earth posse?

I don't think there is much of a real-life debate here. I bet the overwhelming majority of humans (say, 95%) would prefer humanity to continue to exist. Are you really taking the other side of this bet?

If you want to speak of universalizing beyond humanity, what is your case? It makes no categorical sense to reckon our toll on the universe. The universe was fine before we arrived and will remain unaffected if we disappeared. It has no preference. I don't understand your argument honestly, because you have not stated it.

Re: LLMs can teach themselves to better predict the future

#79

Post by achierius »

bayarearefugee wrote: post #57
esafak wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have no way of knowing which path they will take, and there is a non-negligible probability that it will not end well.

What constitutes a good ending is of course also a matter of perspective. AI wiping out humanity is certainly not ending well from our perspective, but more universally who is to say. I would argue that it is not a given that we are a net positive for the universe.

Come on man, you don't actually believe this. If you did you'd be a psychopath, and you certainly seem to care about people's lives when it comes to things like climate change. Just because you don't think AI doom is as likely, doesn't mean you should go and pretend that in that one case you all of a sudden have a nihilistic view of human life -- rhetoric matters.

Re: LLMs can teach themselves to better predict the future

#80

Post by rel_ic »

nthingtohide wrote: post #75
rel_ic wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. Do you have a theory about why so few humans have taken it upon themselves to advance the butterflies, despite having plenty of resources?

We do not have plenty of resources. Lot of inequality in education, empathy, resources, cultural differences. A single human life is limited. A faulty human life has faulty and inefficent objectives like enjoying youth, family life, low energy in old age, tied up in boring jobs. These restrictions do not apply to the single SAI overmind which will dictate its policies in coherent manner and over elongated time-horizo…

I think I disagree with you on many points, but ultimately, if we are overthrown by AI, I hope you are right!
Post reply on HN