811–820 of 1001 posts
Someone asked if true intelligence requires a foundation of prior knowledge. This is the way I think about it. I = E / K where I is the intelligence of the system, E is the effectiveness of the system, and K is the prior knowledge. For example, a math problem is given to two students, each solving the problem with the same effectiveness (both get the correct answer in the same amount of time). However, student A happ…
The first computers cost millions of dollars and filled entire rooms to accomplish what we would now consider simple computational tasks. That same computing power now fits into the width of a finger nail. I don’t get how technologists balk at the cost of experimental tech or assume current tech will run at the same efficiency for decades to come and melt the planet into a puddle. AGI won’t happen until you can fit e…
[deleted]
How does o3 know when to stop reasoning?
That would be intelligent. Everything else is just stupid and more of the same shit.
With only a 100x increase in cost, we improved performance by 0.1x and continued plotting this concave-down diminishing-returns type graph! Hurray for logarithmic x-axes! Joking aside, better than ever before at any cost is an achievement, it just doesn't exactly scream "breakthrough" to me.
And not the other way around as some comments here seem to confuse necessary and sufficient conditions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
some other imporant quotes: "Average human off the street: 70-80%. STEM college grad: >95%. Panel of 10 random humans: 99-100%" -@fchollet on X So, considering that the $3400/task system isn't able to compete with STEM college grad yet, we still have some room (but it is shrinking, i expect even more compute will be thrown and we'll see these barriers broken in coming years) Also, some other back of envelope calculat…
It's also worth keeping in mind that AIs are a lot less risky to deploy for businesses than humans. You can scale them up and down at any time, they can work 24/7 (including holidays) with no overtime pay and no breaks, they need no corporate campuses, office space, HR personnel or travel budgets, you don't have to worry about key employees going on sick/maternity leave or taking time off the moment they're needed mo…
The rhetoric of not needing people doing work is cartoon'ish. I mean there is no sane explanation of how and why that would happen, without employing more people yet again, taking care of the advancements.
It's nok like technology has brought less work related stress. But it has definitely increased it. Humans were not made for using technology at such a pace as it's being rolled out.
The world is fucked. Totally fucked.
Let me go against some skeptics and explain why I think full o3 is pretty much AGI or at least embodies most essential aspects of AGI. What has been lacking so far in frontier LLMs is the ability to reliably deal with the right level of abstraction for a given problem. Reasoning is useful but often comes out lacking if one cannot reason at the right level of abstraction. (Note that many humans can't either when they…
At what time will it kill us all because it understands that humans are the biggest problem before it can simply chill and not worry. That would be intelligent. Everything else is just stupid and more of the same shit.
Of humans. Humans are a problem for the satisfaction of humans. Yet removing humans from this equation does result in higher human satisfaction. It lessens it.
I find this thought process of "humans are the problem" to be unreasonable. Humans aren't the problem; humans are the requirement.