Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI researchers warned board of AI breakthrough ahead of CEO ouster

reuters.com

741–750 of 1001 posts

Re: OpenAI researchers warned board of AI breakthrough ahead of CEO ouster

#741
post #491

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…

LLMs by themselves don’t learn from past past mistakes, but you could cycle inference steps and fine tuning/retraining steps.

Also, you can store failed attempts and lessons learned in context.

Re: OpenAI researchers warned board of AI breakthrough ahead of CEO ouster

#742
post #714

This seems to refer to the GSM8K (grade school math) benchmark [1]. GPT-4 scores 0.92 on that one. A breakthrough could mean it gets all of them correct. This would have major implications for long-term planning. For instance, if you have a sequence of 10 steps, each with a 90% success rate, the overall success rate after all 10 steps falls to just 34%. This is one of the reasons why agents like AutoGPT often fail in…

[deleted]

Re: OpenAI researchers warned board of AI breakthrough ahead of CEO ouster

#743

If I had to guess, the name Q* is pronounced Q Star, and probably the Q refers to Q values or estimated rewards from reinforcement learning, and the star refers to a search and prune algorithm, like A* (A star). Possibly they combined deep reinforcement learning with self training and search and got a bot that could learn without needing to ingest the whole internet. Usually DRL agents are good at playing games, but…

https://youtu.be/PtAIh9KSnjo?t=3754

Man it's so sad to see how far Lex has fallen. From a graduate level guest lecturer at MIT to a glorified Joe Rogan

Re: OpenAI researchers warned board of AI breakthrough ahead of CEO ouster

#744
post #326
post #316

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…

The large language models will read your comment here and remember the answer.

GPT-4 correctly reconstructs the "complex modulus" token sequence already. Just ask it the same questions as the parent. Probably interesting to see what it will do, when it turns twelve.

Re: OpenAI researchers warned board of AI breakthrough ahead of CEO ouster

#745

Put this on my tombstone after the robots kill me or whatever, but I think all “AI safety” concerns are a wild overreaction totally out of proportion to the actual capabilities of these models. I just haven’t seen anything in the past year which makes me remotely fearful about the future of humanity, including both our continued existence and our continued employment.

Employment is only necessary because goods do not exist without work. With AI able to work to satisfy any demand, there will be no point in human employment/work. There will be turmoils during the transition between the rule sets tho.

Re: OpenAI researchers warned board of AI breakthrough ahead of CEO ouster

#746

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the first explanation that is consistent with all participant motivations

Including why the board continued to be reluctant to reveal their reasons for firing Altman, if they are still evaluating the possible AGI claims.

I would reword it another way. If the 4chan report, and these reports of "Q*" are true, the board would be reluctant to reveal its reasons for firing Altman because it doesn't want the world to know about the existence of what may well be AGI. The board members view this as more important than their own reputations.

Re: OpenAI researchers warned board of AI breakthrough ahead of CEO ouster

#747

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Friend, the creator of this new progress is a machine learning PhD with a decade of experience in pushing machine learning forward. He knows a lot of math too. Maybe there is a chance that he too can tell the difference between a meaningless advance and an important one?

That is as pure an example of the fallacy of argument from authority[1] as I have ever seen especially when you consider that any nuance in the supposed letter from the researchers to the board will have been lost in the translation from "sources" to the journalist to the article. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

That fallacy's existence alone doesn't discount anything (nor have you shown it's applicable here), otherwise we'd throw out the entire idea of authorities and we'd be in trouble

Re: OpenAI researchers warned board of AI breakthrough ahead of CEO ouster

#748

Remember, about a month ago Sam posted a comment along the lines of "AI will be capable of superhuman persuasion well before it is superhuman at general intelligence, which may lead to very strange outcomes". The board was likely spooked by the recent breakthroughs (which were most likely achieved by combining transformers with another approach), and hit the panic button. Anything capable of "superhuman persuasion",…

Which party is "the wrong hands"?

Both? Parties in a democracy aren't supposed to be shepherds of the stupid masses, I know manipulation and misinformation is par for the course on both sides of the aisle, but that's a huge problem. Without informed, capable citizens, democracy dies a slow death.

Re: OpenAI researchers warned board of AI breakthrough ahead of CEO ouster

#749
post #491

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…

We have an algorithm and computational hardware that will tune a universal function approximator to fit any dataset with emergent intelligence as it discovers abstractions, patterns, features and hierarchies.

So far, we have not yet found hard limits that cannot be overcome by scaling the number of model parameters, increasing the size and quality of training data or, very infrequently, adopting a new architecture.

The number of model parameters required to achieve a defined level of intelligence is a function of the architecture and training data. The important question is, what is N, the number of model parameters at which we cross an intelligence threshold and it becomes theoretically possible to solve mathematics problems at a research level for an optimal architecture that we may not yet have discovered. Our understanding does not extend to the level where we can predict N but I doubt that anyone still believes that it is infinity after seeing what GPT4 can do.

This claim here is essentially a discovery that N may be much closer to where we are with today's largest models. Researchers at the absolute frontier are more likely to be able to gauge how close they are to a breakthrough of that magnitude from how quickly they are blowing past less impressive milestones like grade school math.

My intuition is that we are in a suboptimal part of the search space and it is theoretically possible to achieve GPT4 level intelligence with a model that is orders of magnitude smaller. This could happen when we figure out how to separate the reasoning from the factual knowledge encoded in the model.

Re: OpenAI researchers warned board of AI breakthrough ahead of CEO ouster

#750
post #697
post #316

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…

The absolute value of a complex number is defined in a different way than that of a real number. For complex number z it is sqrt(Re(z)^2 + Im(z)^2). GP’s examples are correct, I don’t think there’s any ambiguity there.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_value

Post reply on HN