Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI researchers warned board of AI breakthrough ahead of CEO ouster

reuters.com

771–780 of 1001 posts

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

#771
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…

Good point. What would these AI people know about AI? You’re right, what they’re doing will never work

You should make your own, shouldn’t take more than a weekend, right?

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

#772
Seems like they have made progress in combining reinforcement learning and LLMs. Andrej Karpathy mentions it in his new talk (~38 minutes in) [1], and Ilya Sutskever talks about it in a lecture at MIT (~29 minutes in) [2]. It would be a huge breakthrough to find a proper reward function to train LLMs in a reinforcement learning setup, and to train a model to solve math problems in a similar fashion to how AlphaGo used self-play to learn Go.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjkBMFhNj_g&t=2282s

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EN_HoEk3KY&t=1705s

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

#773

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…

I think more likely it's for finetuning a pre-trained model like GPT-4, kinda like RLHF, but in this case using reinforcement learning somewhat similar to AlphaZero. The model gets pre-trained and then fine-tuned to achieve mastery in tasks like mathematics and programming, using something like what you say and probably something like tree of thought and some self reflection to generate the data that it's using reinforcement learning to improve on.

What you get then is a way to get a pre-trained model to keep practicing certain tasks like chess, go, math, programming and many other things as it gets figured out how to do it.

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

#774
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…

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…

Can LLM's compute any computable function? I thought that an LLM can approximate any computable function, if the function is within the distribution that it is are trained on. I think it's jolly interesting to think about different axiomizations in this context.

Also we know that LLM's can't do a few things - arithmetic, inference & planning are in there. They look like they can because they retrieve discussions from the internet that contain the problems, but when they are tested out of distribution then all of a sudden they fail. However, some other nn's can do these things because they have the architecture and infrastructure and training that enables it.

There is a question for some of these as to whether we want to make NN's do these tasks or just provide calculators, like for grade students, but on the other hand something like Alphazero looks like it could find new ways of doing some problems in planning. The challenge is to find architectures that integrate the different capabilities we can implement in a useful and synergistic way. Lots of people have drawn diagrams about how this can be done, then presented them with lots of hand waving at big conferences. What I love is that John Laird has been building this sort of thing for like, forty years, and is roundly ignored by NN people for some reason.

Maybe because he keeps saying it's really hard and then producing lots of reasons to believe him?

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

#775

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that there's a fairly large body of evidence that persuasion is of limited use in shifting political opinion. So the persuasion would need to be applied to something other than some sort of causative political-implication-laden argument.

> Except that there's a fairly large body of evidence that persuasion is of limited use in shifting political opinion. The Republican Party's base became isolationist and protectionist during 2015 and 2016 because their dear leader persuaded them.

I think it’s not clear that the causation flowed that way. I think it’s at least partially true that the Republican base was much more isolationist and protectionist than its “establishment” elite, so any significant candidate that played into that was going to get some level of support.

That, combined with Donald Trump’s massive pre-existing celebrity, talent for showmanship, and utter shamelessness got him across the line.

I think it’s fair to say that at least partially, Trump didn’t shift the base - rather he revealed that the base wasn’t where the establishment thought it was.

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

#776
post #637
post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought (and could be wrong) that all of these concerns are based on a very low probability of a very bad outcome. So: we might be close to a breakthrough, that breakthrough could get out of hand, then it could kill a billion+ people.

> I thought (and could be wrong) that all of these concerns are based on a very low probability of a very bad outcome. Among knowledgeable people who have concerns in the first place, I'd say giving the probability of a very bad outcome of cumulative advances as "very low" is a fringe position. It seems to vary more between "significant" and "close to unity". There are some knowledgeable people like Yann LeCun who ha…

Given how dismissive LeCun is of the capabilities of SotA models, I think he thinks the state of the art is very far from human, and will never be human-like.

Myself, I think I count as a massive optimist, as my P(doom) is only about 15% — basically the same as Russian Roulette — half of which is humans using AI to do bad things directly.

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

#777
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…

You make the asumption that Q* is a LLM, but I think OpenAI guys know very well that the current LLM architecture cannot achieve AGI.

As the name suggests, this things is likely using some form of Q learning algorithm, which makes it closer to the DeepMind models than a transformer.

My guess is that they pipe their LLM into some Q learnt net. The LLM may transform a natural language task into some internal representation that can then be handled by the Q-learnt model, which spits out something that can be transformed back again into natural language.

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

#778

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There is a general result in machine learning known as "the bitter lesson"[1], which is that methods which come from specialist knowledge tend to be beaten by methods which rely on brute force computation in the long run because of Moore's law and the ability to scale things by distributed computing. So the reason people don't use the "add instruction"[2] for example is that over the last 70 years of attempting to bu…

I would mention, that while yes, you can just throw computational power at the problem, the addition of human expertise didn't disappear. It moved from creating an add instruction, to coming up with a new Neural Net Architecture, and we've seen a lot of the ideas being super useful and pushing the boundaries.

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

#779
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…

If they're not already in one, you might want to get your kid enlisted in some gifted child programs.

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

#780
post #747

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Authorities are useful within a context. Appealing to authority is not an argument. At most, it is an heuristic.

_Using_ this fallacy in an argument invalidates the argument (or shows it did not exist in the first place)

Post reply on HN