Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Andrej Karpathy – It will take a decade to work through the issues with agents

dwarkesh.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

831–840 of 1001 posts

Re: Andrej Karpathy – It will take a decade to work through the issues with agents

#831

Post by walkabout »

judahmeek wrote: post #572
__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we can ever know that we are generally intelligent. We can be unsure, or we can meet something else which possesses a type of intelligence that we don't, and then we'll know that our intelligence is specific and not general. So to make predictions about general intelligence is just crazy. And yeah yeah I know that OpenAI defines it as the ability to do all economically relevant tasks, but that's an awfu…

All intelligence is specific, as evidenced by the fact that a universal definition regarding the specifics of "common sense" doesn't exist.

A universal definition of “chair” is pretty hard to pin down, too…

Re: Andrej Karpathy – It will take a decade to work through the issues with agents

#832

Post by mabedan »

mmcnl wrote: post #420

I find it strange AGI is the goal. The label AI is off and irrelevant. A language model is not AI, even a large language model. But language models are still extremely useful and potentially revolutionary. Labelling language models as AI is both under and overstating the value. It's not AI (insert sad trombone), but that doesn't mean it's amazing technology (insert thunderous applause).

Greg Brockman talks about it on Lex’ podcast I think. He thinks ultimately AGI won’t be anything more than token generation, if I remember correctly

Re: Andrej Karpathy – It will take a decade to work through the issues with agents

#833

Post by rhetocj23 »

spjt wrote: post #553

The thing about AGI is that if it's even possible, it's not coming before the money runs out of the current AI hype cycle. At least we'll all be able to pick up a rack of secondhand H100's for a tenner and a pack of smokes to run uncensored diffusion models on in a couple years. The real devastation will be in the porn industry.

"The real devastation will be in the porn industry."

The UK govt has started to crack down on this. AI generated porn will lead to a war from govts on nailing this economic activity shut.

Re: Andrej Karpathy – It will take a decade to work through the issues with agents

#834

Post by ajross »

subjectivationx wrote: post #807
ajross wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Knowing which parts-of-speech about sunrises appear together and where is not the same as understanding a sunrise What does "understanding a sunrise" mean though? Arguments like this end up resting on semantics or tautology, 100% of the time. Arguments of the form "what AI is really doing" likewise fail because we don't know what real brains are "really" doing either . I mean, if we knew how to model human language…

Everyone reading this understands the meaning of a sunrise. It is a wonderful example of the use theory of meaning. If you raised a baby inside a windowless solitary confinement cell for 20 years and then one day show them the sunrise on a video monitor, they still don't understand the meaning of a sunrise. Trying to extract the meaning of a sunrise by a machine from the syntax of a sunrise data corpus is just totall…

> Everyone reading this understands the meaning of a sunrise

For a definition of "understands" that resists rigor and repeatability, sure. This is what I meant by reducing it to a semantic argument. You're just saying that AI is impossible. That doesn't constitute evidence for your position. Your opponents in the argument who feel AGI is imminent are likewise just handwaving.

To wit: none of you people have any idea what you're talking about. No one does. So take off the high hat and stop pretending you do.

Re: Andrej Karpathy – It will take a decade to work through the issues with agents

#835

Post by danans »

LarsDu88 wrote: post #443
ekjhgkejhgk wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The interview which I've watched recently with Rich Sutton left me with the impression that AGI is not just a matter of adding more 9s. The interviewer had an idea that he took for granted: that to understand language you have to have a model of the world. LLMs seem to udnerstand language therefore they've trained a model of the world. Sutton rejected the premise immediately. He might be right in being skeptical here…

This world model talk is interesting, and Yann Lecunn has broached on the same topic, but the fact is there are video diffusion models that are quite good at representing the "video world" and even counterfactually and temporally coherently generating a representation of that "world" under different perturbations. In fact you can go to a SOTA LLM today, and it will do quite well at predicting the outcomes of basic co…

> It's incredibly difficult to compress information without have at least some internal model of that information. Whether that model is a "world model" that fits the definition of folks like Sutton and LeCunn is semantic.

Sutton's emphasizes his point by saying is that LLMs trying to reach AGI is futile because their world models are less capable that a squirrel's, in part because the squirrel has direct experiences and its own goals, and is capable of continual learning based on those in real time, whereas an LLM has none of those.

Finally he says if you could recreate the intelligence of a squirrel you'd be most of the way toward AGI, but you can't do that with an LLM.

Re: Andrej Karpathy – It will take a decade to work through the issues with agents

#836

Post by rhetocj23 »

willyxdjazz wrote: post #715

Maybe I'm being too simplistic, but I think we're mixing two distinct debates. Today we have an extraordinary invention—comparable to the wheel in its time. That invention is: predictive inference over all human knowledge. Period. I don't like calling it "Artificial Intelligence" because it's not intelligence; it's a prediction system that can project responses by illuminating patterns across all human knowledge enca…

I think this comparison is all wrong. The internet is more closer to the notion of a wheel - the internet has done amazing stuff just as the wheel has and nobody foresaw the impact the internet would have and how the underlying technologies that power it have evolved.

Just like how a wheel moves stuff, the internet is the medium through which bits are transmitted and received.

Re: Andrej Karpathy – It will take a decade to work through the issues with agents

#837

Post by mabedan »

nopinsight wrote: post #124

A definition of AGI: https://www.agidefinition.ai/ A new contribution by quite a few prominent authors. One of the better efforts at defining AGI *objectively*, rather than through indirect measures like economic impact. I believe it is incomplete because the psychological theory it is based on is incomplete. It is definitely worth discussing though. —- In particular, creative problem solving in the strong sense, ie…

I’m surprised there’s no mention of creativity and outside the box thinking. Listening to this podcast I was wondering if we could train the LLM with knowledge cutoff right before transformers, and ask it to come up with an ML method for LLMs. I’m quite sure none of today’s models would be able to (obviously without access to internet search)

Re: Andrej Karpathy – It will take a decade to work through the issues with agents

#838

Post by hitarpetar »

stouset wrote: post #652
ziofill wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with this. A metaphor I like is that the reason why humans say the night sky is beautiful is because they see that it is, whereas an LLM says it because it’s been said enough times in its training data.

To play devil’s advocate, you have never seen the night sky. Photoreceptors in your eye have been excited in the presence of photons. Those photoreceptors have relayed this information across a nerve to neurons in your brain which receive this encoded information and splay it out to an array of other neurons. Each cell in this chain can rightfully claim to be a living organism in and of itself. “You” haven’t directly…

> you have never seen the night sky

this is nonsensical. sometimes the devil is not worth arguing for

Re: Andrej Karpathy – It will take a decade to work through the issues with agents

#839

Post by rhetocj23 »

modeless wrote: post #648
phoenixreader wrote: post #604

A decade is nothing. If issues will be worked through a decade from now, that means the best time to think about opportunities/coonsequences related to that is now.

Yeah, I see people pooh-poohing the idea of humanoid robots being useful this decade, saying it will take at least 20 years. Oh yeah? Instead of 5 years to render all human labor obsolete, it will take 20? The magnitude of that change is so large that the implications of it happening anytime in our lifetimes are too big to ignore. The important thing is that this is not going to be perpetually 20 years in the future…

I think its more likely that it wont happen and the hubris of folks like you is going to look comical in hindsight.

Re: Andrej Karpathy – It will take a decade to work through the issues with agents

#840

Post by cmrdporcupine »

chadcmulligan wrote: post #800
joshellington wrote: post #473

To throw two pennies in the ocean of this comment section - I’d argue we still lack schematic-level understanding of what “intelligence” even is or how it works. Not to mention how it interfaces with “consciousness”, and their likely relation to each other. Which kinda invalidates a lot of predictions/discussions of “AGI” or even in general “AI”. How can one identify Artificial Intelligence/AGI without a modicum of u…

I did the math some years ago on how much computing is required to simulate a human brain - a brain has around 90 billion neurons with each neuron having an average of 7,000 connections to other neurons. Lets assume thats all we need. So what do we need to simulate a neuron, one cpu? or can we fit more than one in a CPU, lets say 100 so we're down to one billion cpu's and 70 trillion messages flying between them ever…

We don't even have an accurate convincing model of how the functions of the brain really work, so it's crazy to even think about its simulation like that. I have no doubt that the cost would be tremendous if we could even do it, but I don't even think we know what to do.

The LLM stuff seems most distinctly to not be an emulation of the human brain in any sense, even if it displays human-like characteristics at times.

Post reply on HN