731–740 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Discussed in another thread, but what OpenAI might call AGI and what other people might call AGI are two different things: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38316378#38319586
I just tried to Google the Open AI definition of AGI and found a reddit thread about someone editing the Wikipedia definition of AGI to match the OpenAI one. https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/s/64wGaH0P9C
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think any rhetoric could ever persuade you to you adopt the opposite general worldview of what you currently have? I'm positive that it could not for me. The reason for this is not because I'm obstinate, but because my worldview is not formed on persuasion, but on lived experience. And I think this is true for the overwhelming majority of people. It's why our views tend to change as we age, and experience more…
Yes. Do not forget that we literally live in the Matrix, getting all the information of import through tiny screens, the sources and validity of which we can only speculate on. All of the validity of the info we have is verified by heuristics we have, like groupthink, listening to 'experts' and trying to match up the info with our internal knowledge and worldview. I feel like our current system of information allows…
The world is becoming information saturated and poorly structured by design, ever notice how these story blockers are such a big part of the propaganda machine, whereby you have to use elaborate workarounds to just read a simple news story thats pulled from another source?
Saturating culture with too much data is a great tool of breaking reality, breaking truth.
But they cant break truth for long, it always finds a way. And truth is a powerful vector, much more than propaganda without a base in truth, because human experience is powerful, unquantifiable, and can take someone from the gutter to a place of massive wealth or influence, in an instant. That is the power of human experience, the power of truth.
Doesnt make it easy though, to live in this world of so many lies, supercharged by bots. Nature outside of our technology is much simpler in its truth.
i no longer follow the messianic complex of the people in openAI. They made great tech, indeed. Other people made great tech before them without instant religious level apocalypse proclamations. People in openAI are smart enough to know that post-AGI , their stock options are worthless anyway so they wouldn't stay walled in their secret garden if such a discovery had been made.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How on earth could you evaluate the scaling path with too little information. That's my point. You can't possibly know that a technology can solve a given kind of problem if it can only so far solve a completely different kind of problem which is largely unrelated! Saying that performance on grade-school problems is predictive of performance on complex reasoning tasks (including theorem proving) is like saying that a…
Honestly, OpenAI seem more like a cult that a company to me. The hyperbole that surrounds them fits the mould nicely.
I feel very comfortable saying, as a mathematician, that the ability to solve grade school maths problems would not be at all a predictor of ability to solve real mathematical problems at a research level. The reason LLMs fail at solving mathematical problems is because: 1) they are terrible at arithmetic, 2) they are terrible at algebra, but most importantly, 3) they are terrible at complex reasoning (more specifica…
What I wonder, as a computer scientist: If you want to solve grade school math problems, why not use an 'add' instruction? It's been around since the 50s, runs a billion times faster than an LLM, every assembly-language programmer knows how to use it, every high-level language has a one-token equivalent, and doesn't hallucinate answers (other than integer overflow). We also know how to solve complex reasoning chains…
[1] http://www.incompleteideas.net/IncIdeas/BitterLesson.html
[2] Which the people making these models are familiar with. The whole thing is a trillion+ parameter linear algebra crunching machine after all.
I was talking to my (12 year old) son about parts of math he finds boring. He said that he thinks absolute value is absurdly easy and extremely boring. I asked him if there was anything that might make it more interesting, he said "maybe complex numbers". So I asked him "what would the absolute value of i+1 be?" he thinks for a little bit and says "square root of 2" and I ask him "what about the absolute value of 2i…
Sorry, can you explain this? To me, it makes sense to define abs(x) = sqrt(x^2) i.e. ignoring the negative solution enforces the positive result. Using that definition, abs(i+1) = sqrt((i+1)^2) = sqrt(i^2 + 2i + 1) = sqrt(-1 + 2i + 1) = sqrt(2i) != sqrt(2). The second example seems off in the same way (i.e. the answer should be sqrt(8i) instead of sqrt(8)). Am I missing something? Also, abs(i+2) = sqrt((i+2)^2) = sqr…
They could, for example, use this new AGI to search through all the worlds information for discoveries that can me made by putting existing facts together.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
After a year the entire argument you make boils down to “so far”.
Indeed. LLM is an application on a transformer trained with backpropagation. What stops you from adding a logic/mathematic "application" on the same transformer?
[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.04761 Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools
I was talking to my (12 year old) son about parts of math he finds boring. He said that he thinks absolute value is absurdly easy and extremely boring. I asked him if there was anything that might make it more interesting, he said "maybe complex numbers". So I asked him "what would the absolute value of i+1 be?" he thinks for a little bit and says "square root of 2" and I ask him "what about the absolute value of 2i…
Sorry, can you explain this? To me, it makes sense to define abs(x) = sqrt(x^2) i.e. ignoring the negative solution enforces the positive result. Using that definition, abs(i+1) = sqrt((i+1)^2) = sqrt(i^2 + 2i + 1) = sqrt(-1 + 2i + 1) = sqrt(2i) != sqrt(2). The second example seems off in the same way (i.e. the answer should be sqrt(8i) instead of sqrt(8)). Am I missing something? Also, abs(i+2) = sqrt((i+2)^2) = sqr…