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

How to Build the Future: Demis Hassabis [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 82 posts

Re: How to Build the Future: Demis Hassabis [video]

#71

Post by ainch »

0x3f wrote: post #64
jatora wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't vary that widely in humans? Do you have a source for that?

Even if you take IQ, a 2-sigma event on that distribution is 'only' around 130. A 130 outpaces a 100, sure, but it's hardly full on dominance in most tasks. Certainly much less powerful than just having rich or pushy parents. > The CV of e.g. IQ is only 15%. That's in line with other 'natural' attributes of humans, but not compared to something like family wealth or background. From a quick Google, wealth is 700% in…

I'm generally suspicious of IQ but still - 2 standard deviations above average would include about 2.5% of the population. Hassabis is in a significantly more exclusive slice.

His parents weren't particularly wealthy. More likely: he is exceptionally intelligent, hardworking, visionary, and grew up in an environment which fostered those attributes in a precocious child.

Re: How to Build the Future: Demis Hassabis [video]

#72

Post by UltraSane »

0x3f wrote: post #69
UltraSane wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked in a retail PC sales and repair store and the gulf between the stupidest and smartest customers was enormous.

I think you've just got perceptual tuning for the human to human context. It's like how human faces that are 5% different can be very obvious to us, but it's much harder to tell (for example) two cats apart at the same difference level. All of your adaptive pressures are pulling in that direction. But at a system-scale view of intelligence, humans are squashed together and it plays a pretty small role on outcomes. Yo…

"I think you've just got perceptual tuning for the human to human context"

Not at all. I have to learn how to talk very differently to people on both ends of the IQ range. Wealth is a terrible proxy for IQ because it doesn't actually correlate very much due to accidents of birth and interests. Just look at Terrance Tao vs Trump's idiot sons.

Re: How to Build the Future: Demis Hassabis [video]

#73

Post by hackernudes »

euroderf wrote: post #67
mentalgear wrote: post #4

People doing frontier research in knowledge representation & reasoning are worrying that soon, with the merging of LLM and knowledge graphs, automated 'everything' from research to production, will be possible. This implies that 'human cleverness' will get you nowhere any more and the only limits will then be computation - a resource Big Tech is hard at work completely walling normal people out of.

This is where I thought Cyc might contribute.

Would Cyc count as a "knowledge graph" that the poster is referring to?

Re: How to Build the Future: Demis Hassabis [video]

#74

Post by karp773 »

libraryofbabel wrote: post #11

Is anyone else reading Sebastian Mallaby’s new book about Demis and Deepmind: The Infinity Machine: Demis Hassabis, DeepMind, and the Quest for Superintelligence ? It’s pretty good, and goes a lot into his background before Deepmind (chess kid, developing games at bullfrog, CS at Cambridge, bullfrog again, games startup…). He’s certainly an interesting guy, and as others are pointing out, more thoughtful and earnest…

I did not read this book but I read another one by Mallaby about hedge fund managers. It was pretty biased to the point that I did not recognize one of the managers I knew about (Michael Steinhardt). The guy who himself confessed in a lot of his past shady stuff in his 2001 book. Mallaby's book from 2010 did not bring up any of that shady stuff. It was like reading about a totally different person.

Of course, I am not trying to prove moral equivalency between Steinhardt and Hassabis. But it is worth keeping this in mind when reading something by Mallaby. Do not expect completeness or impartiality.

Re: How to Build the Future: Demis Hassabis [video]

#75

Post by Tarq0n »

mdp2021 wrote: post #54
libraryofbabel wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh wow, you blow my mind with your linguistic erudition; I had no idea it was possible to use male-gendered terms in a generic way! Well, all is forgiven, then. Seriously, just... don't? This isn’t some woke political thing and I dislike excessive policing of language but damn it, there are limits. "Guys" I'll let pass no problem, maybe even "dude" too on a good day. At "bro" I will take a stand, thank you very much.

I am still in my bed of pain, and you summoned me from the after-public-life of attempted recovery. > I had no idea it was possible to use male-gendered terms in a generic way This is just sarcastic, right? "Male gendering" is just a use, no gender is involved in plain terming (outside the obvious exception of intentional gendering)... "Wo-man" specifies "/sensitive/ man", but there is no gender in "man", in "having…

Language is intersubjective (its meaning is in the minds of the participants). Referring to the history or composition of a word is interesting but entirely insufficient to justify its use.

Re: How to Build the Future: Demis Hassabis [video]

#76

Post by Tarq0n »

lnenad wrote: post #25
andsoitis wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes let’s root for Alphabet controlling even more things!

It's not "Alphabet". Alphabet doesn't have a brain. It's people steering these companies. If our choice is between one megacorp with a proud and obvious narcissistic psychopath and one that has Demis, I'd rather go with the other.

The aggregate effect of the chemical gradients in the antheap controls the ants. It's similar in these giant companies where the combination of all the incentives makes for a gradient towards certain outcomes. I can see little intentionality or individual agency in what the likes of Google have produced in the last two decades.

Re: How to Build the Future: Demis Hassabis [video]

#77

Post by mdp2021 »

Tarq0n wrote: post #75
mdp2021 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am still in my bed of pain, and you summoned me from the after-public-life of attempted recovery. > I had no idea it was possible to use male-gendered terms in a generic way This is just sarcastic, right? "Male gendering" is just a use, no gender is involved in plain terming (outside the obvious exception of intentional gendering)... "Wo-man" specifies "/sensitive/ man", but there is no gender in "man", in "having…

Language is intersubjective (its meaning is in the minds of the participants). Referring to the history or composition of a word is interesting but entirely insufficient to justify its use.

> intersubjective

I often quote what we do in the server-client relation: interpret loosely but express correctly.

It is not just a way of communication: language is one of the factors behind thought: hence, its care must be cared for and promoted.

Sure, also the context and the communication need have a weight. But without compromising into conformism (as in, "doing it wrong because people do").

> its meaning is in the minds of the participants

Awareness has its benefits (the greatest understatement I have ever written); licence has its costs.

> entirely insufficient to justify its use

Why. The competent will always use tools differently than the layman and the amateur. Again the server client (and always the need of good thought in the background): you will express as best as you can and try to be clear (communicatively efficient) within that framework.

Re: How to Build the Future: Demis Hassabis [video]

#78

Post by saagarjha »

losvedir wrote: post #49
libraryofbabel wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh wow, you blow my mind with your linguistic erudition; I had no idea it was possible to use male-gendered terms in a generic way! Well, all is forgiven, then. Seriously, just... don't? This isn’t some woke political thing and I dislike excessive policing of language but damn it, there are limits. "Guys" I'll let pass no problem, maybe even "dude" too on a good day. At "bro" I will take a stand, thank you very much.

You're just showing your age. I can't stand it but my daughter says "Bro" to me and my wife. As a 40 year old Californian I've come to accept it as this generation's "dude" or "man" (as in "man, that sucks"), sadly.

I feel like replying to someone who is being called something they don't want with "you're actually just old!" may not be a winning strategy

Re: How to Build the Future: Demis Hassabis [video]

#79

Post by jatora »

0x3f wrote: post #64
jatora wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't vary that widely in humans? Do you have a source for that?

Even if you take IQ, a 2-sigma event on that distribution is 'only' around 130. A 130 outpaces a 100, sure, but it's hardly full on dominance in most tasks. Certainly much less powerful than just having rich or pushy parents. > The CV of e.g. IQ is only 15%. That's in line with other 'natural' attributes of humans, but not compared to something like family wealth or background. From a quick Google, wealth is 700% in…

all being equal, a 130 will completely trounce a 100 on almost every mental task. what are you talking about? do you honestly think otherwise?

Re: How to Build the Future: Demis Hassabis [video]

#80

Post by 0x3f »

jatora wrote: post #79
0x3f wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you take IQ, a 2-sigma event on that distribution is 'only' around 130. A 130 outpaces a 100, sure, but it's hardly full on dominance in most tasks. Certainly much less powerful than just having rich or pushy parents. > The CV of e.g. IQ is only 15%. That's in line with other 'natural' attributes of humans, but not compared to something like family wealth or background. From a quick Google, wealth is 700% in…

all being equal, a 130 will completely trounce a 100 on almost every mental task. what are you talking about? do you honestly think otherwise?

They might 'win' reliably, but I don't believe the margin on outcome itself to be that great.
Post reply on HN