711–720 of 803 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So it's all just fleecing money from mega corps? (Cue the "Always has been" meme?)
Those mega-corps become big thanks to the same network of VCs. People should have realized it by now that Silicon Valley exist because of this.
I'm so tired of people who stubbornly insist that somehow only the same 500 people are possibly capable of having valuable thoughts in any way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> whoever develops superintelligence first will not release it to the public, but rather use it for their own purposes to gain an edge We have no evidence that superintelligence will be developed. There's no "first". There's only "remote possibility".
> We have no evidence that superintelligence will be developed. Fundamentally, we have no evidence of anything that will happen in the future. All we do is to extrapolate from the past through the present, typically using some kind of theory of how the world operates. The belief that we will eventually (whether it's this year or in 1000+ years), really only hinges on the following 3 assumptions: 1) The human brain is…
Rats don't speak
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The TMV (Total Market Value) of solving AGI is infinity. And furthermore, if AGI is solved, the TMV of pretty much everything else drops to zero. I feel like these extreme numbers are a pretty obvious clue that we’re talking about something that is completely imaginary. Like I could put “perpetual motion machine” into those sentences and the same logic holds.
The intuition is pretty spot on though. We don't need to get to AGI. Just making progress along the way to AGI can do plenty of damage. 1. AI-driven medical procedures: Healthcare Cost = $0. 2. Access to world class education: Cost of education = $0 3. Transportation: Cheap Autonomous vehicles powered by Solar. 4. Scientific research: AI will accelerate scientific progress by coming up with novel hypotheses and then…
I hate to break the illusion, but scientific progress is not being held up by a lack of novel hypotheses
This being ycombinator and as such ostensibly has one or two (if not more) VCs as readers/commentators … can someone please tell me how these companies that are being invested in in the AI space are going to make returns on the money invested? What’s the business plan? (I’m not rich enough to be in these meetings) I just don’t see how the returns will happen. Open source LLMs exist and will get better. Is it just tha…
The TMV (Total Market Value) of solving AGI is infinity. And furthermore, if AGI is solved, the TMV of pretty much everything else drops to zero. The play here is to basically invest in all possible players who might reach AGI, because if one of them does, you just hit the infinite money hack. And maybe with SSI you've saved the world too.
Lazy. Since you can't decide what the actual value is, just make something up.
This has to be one of the quickest valuations past a billion. I wonder if they can even effectively make use of the funds in a reasonable enough timeline.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ilya has discussed this question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEUclZdj_Sc
To clarify this, I think it's reasonable that token prediction as a training objective could lead to AGI given the underlying model has the correct architecture. The question really is if the underlying architecture is good enough to capitalize on the training objective so as to result in superhuman intelligence. For example, you'll have little luck achieving AGI with decision trees no matter what's their training ob…
Lots of comments either defending this ("it's taking a chance on being the first to build AGI with a proven team") or saying "it's a crazy valuation for a 3 month old startup". But both of these "sides" feel like they miss the mark to me. On one hand, I think it's great that investors are willing to throw big chunks of money at hard (or at least expensive) problems. I'm pretty sure all the investors putting money in…
> the more that it becomes clear that LLMs really are just "fancy autocomplete", even if it's really really fancy autocomplete I also don't really see AGI emerging from LLMs any time soon, but it could be argued that human intelligence is also just 'fancy autocomplete'.
Well, no. Humans do not think sequentially. But even if we were to put that aside, any "autocomplete" we perform is based on a world model, and not tokens in a string.
"Everyone just says scaling hypothesis. Everyone neglects to ask, what are we scaling?" [Sutskever] said. Any guesses?
I will never stop laughing at the assumption that the USA government will just let these companies build superintelligence. Imagine the Pentagon just twiddling their thumbs, and the CIA decides to just passively wait-and-see...