71–80 of 119 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think he is trying to take the positive side of what is probably an inetability.
Or we could just you know, not build the thing that will probably kill us all and at minimum will obsolete all our labor value.
If "we" don't build it, someone else will.
Their book "Introduction to Reinforcement Learning" is one of the most accessible texts in the AI/ML field, highly recommend reading it.
Good time to remind everyone that Sutton is a human successionist and doesn't care if humans all die. He is not to be trusted nor celebrated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgHFMolXs3U
The ACM award is for their professional academic achievements - this fetishism to dig into another person’s personal life and find the most weird thing they said as the thing that paints over all of their life’s achievements as evil must stop. It’s silly and dangerous. Because you don’t like thing A and they said/did thing A all of their lofty accomplishments get nullified by anyone. And worst of all internet gives y…
Good time to remind everyone that Sutton is a human successionist and doesn't care if humans all die. He is not to be trusted nor celebrated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgHFMolXs3U
Good time to remind everyone that Sutton is a human successionist and doesn't care if humans all die. He is not to be trusted nor celebrated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgHFMolXs3U
In the talk, he says it will lead to an era of prosperity for humanity, however without humanity being in sole control of their destiny. His conclusion slide (at 12:33) literally has the bullet point "the best hope for a long-term future for humanity". That is opposite to you saying he "doesn't care if humans all die".
If I plan for my succession, I don't hope nor expect my daughter will murder me. I'm hoping for a long retirement in good health after which I will quietly pass in my sleep, knowing I left her as well as I could in a symbiotic relationship with the universe.
Good time to remind everyone that Sutton is a human successionist and doesn't care if humans all die. He is not to be trusted nor celebrated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgHFMolXs3U
The ACM award is for their professional academic achievements - this fetishism to dig into another person’s personal life and find the most weird thing they said as the thing that paints over all of their life’s achievements as evil must stop. It’s silly and dangerous. Because you don’t like thing A and they said/did thing A all of their lofty accomplishments get nullified by anyone. And worst of all internet gives y…
Reminds me of a quote from Jean Cocteau, of which I could not find the exact words, but which roughly says that if the public knew what thoughts geniuses can have, it would be more terrified than admiring.
Good time to re-read The Bitter Lesson: https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~eunsol/courses/data/bitter_lesson...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>AI can eventually create AI's that are built up out of robust and provable logic That's the approach behind Max Tegmark and Steven Omohundro's "Provably Safe AGI": https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.01933 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhMwkk6uOK8 However, there are issues. How do you even begin to formalize concepts like human well-being?
> However there are issues. How do you even begin to formalize concepts like human well-being? Oh agreed! But with AI we might(!) have the luxury to create different types of brains; logically correct brains for space flight, building structures (or at least the calcuations), taxes, accounting, physics, math etc and brains with feelings for many other things. Have those cooperate. ps. thanks for the links!
This is what I consider the limit of the human mind: we have to start with a few assumptions we can't "prove" to build even a formal logic system which we then use to build all the other provably correct systems, but we still add other axioms to make them work.
It's hard for me to even think how AI can help with that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The video is not about his technical work but rather his view that AI will or should take over the future.
But the Turing Award is for his technical work.
It's not just one Youtube video, it's a repeatedly expressed view:
https://x.com/RichardSSutton/status/1575619655778983936
Valuing technological advance for its own sake "beyond good and bad" is an admirably clear statement of how a lot of researchers operate, but that's the best I can say for it.
Good time to remind everyone that Sutton is a human successionist and doesn't care if humans all die. He is not to be trusted nor celebrated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgHFMolXs3U
The ACM award is for their professional academic achievements - this fetishism to dig into another person’s personal life and find the most weird thing they said as the thing that paints over all of their life’s achievements as evil must stop. It’s silly and dangerous. Because you don’t like thing A and they said/did thing A all of their lofty accomplishments get nullified by anyone. And worst of all internet gives y…
I don't think it's a question of whether their achievements are nullified, but as you mention, how to weight the opinions of various people. Personally, I think both a Turing award for technical achievement and a view that humanity ought to be replaced are relevant in evaluating someone's opinions on AI policy, and we shouldn't forget the latter because of the former.
(Also, this isn't about Sutton's personal life - that's a pretty bad strawman.)