Live data from Hacker News

AI (2014)

blog.samaltman.com

71–72 of 72 posts

Re: AI (2014)

#71
post #3

> The most positive outcome I can think of is one where computers get really good at doing, and humans get really good at thinking. If we never figure out how to make computers creative, then there will be a very natural division of labor between man and machine. Man will do nothing and machine will do everything. That's a bleak world no one is preparing for. How is that universal basic income scheme coming along?

eventually govt will run these models and distribute us the profits. model makers have no moat. govt can run it like a utility.

Re: AI (2014)

#72
post #68
post #67

I model LLMs as searchers. Give the input search and they match an output. The massiveness of the parameters and training data let them map data in a way searching looks like human thinking. They can also permutate a little and still stay in a space that can overlap with reality. The human brain may be doing a very similar thing though, search and permutation via searched rules. It may be doing it just in a functiona…

It's an interesting way to think about it. For every word you say, every message you write, every task you do, every thought you have, every subtle cue you give, there is a statistically best response / follow up / output. And all of that can distilled and stored into such a small amount of data. If that's really how consciousness works in our mind (just another representation of "output") it's fascinating. The reper…

I think you are mixing two concepts. I was just talking about having an LLM that is able to replicate human thinking, which is different then having a precise person's brains turned into LLM weights.

In that second case the problems you are saying emerge. But I can understand why you conflate the two, since having a model that works like a human may unlock the ability to dump the brain into model weights.

Post reply on HN