941–950 of 990 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The vast majority of pain and suffering in the world is already entirely optional, but as people we allow it to exist. How is another computer going to fix that? It is far more likely that whoever controls a super intelligence uses it to gain more power and inflict far more suffering
what an asinine opinion. who allows death?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, I was just pointing at the fact that the question "And where does ChatGPT get the data for those answers?" has a two-part answer: 1) training data (common crawl as one example web data source), and 2) live data optionally retrieved at runtime. My comment was about 2), and that part runs via a search engine (Bing?), at least if you look at how ChatGPT does it.
Indeed, but what is the difference between crawl data and model data but decay rate? Models are trained on previous crawl data, but if an LLM provider engages a search engine to get "live data," that data isn't live but previously crawled as well (and perhaps not yet integrated into models as crawl data). So, why would you use Google as a tool or search target when you can, in some combination, go direct to the websi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The vast majority of pain and suffering in the world is already entirely optional, but as people we allow it to exist. How is another computer going to fix that? It is far more likely that whoever controls a super intelligence uses it to gain more power and inflict far more suffering
what an asinine opinion. who allows death?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nowhere near what other ai labs are paying. Most deep mind employees make what typical Google employees make
Not true, they get paid at least a whole level (or two) above what we make. When I was discussing offers a few years ago, the GDM candidates regularly had six figure differentials even though they were the same level. Maybe this isn't the same as the eight figure comp they'd get at Meta when they did their hiring spree, but no one thinks that's sustainable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Genuine question: can I ask why? I'm not saying you're wrong, but it seems early to say yes or no about a particular technology, and LLMs seem especially hard to dismiss given how magical / magic-adjacent they feel :) I'd be curious to hear more, if you don't mind sharing.
For me it’s the massive amount of resources it takes to produce and run one. As the story goes, skynet infects everyone’s computer and runs itself locally on it. Whereas it’s looking like it’s not even possible for an AGI to escape from one lab to another, let alone cause real world damage. AGI’s definition is different for everyone. Some already believe it’s here. I’m partly in that camp. LLMs are intelligent and ge…
It's amazing that LLM pretraining is both extremely data inefficient at learning concepts and cognitive functions from the training data compared to humans, while actually being quite efficient at learning facts, memorising things seen just a few times.
I used to likewise think that the resources required to run large transformers were absurd, but the architectures are far more efficient now than 3 years ago and I underestimated just massive the parallelisation advantage of transformers is, how many TFLOPS effective you can get. You can already run amazingly decent LLMs on PCs and phones.
I generally agree with you, but my view has shifted from "we need to augment or replace LLMs" to it there being far more efficient algorithms possible but it not actually being necessary for fulfilling most goals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Man, I'd never heard that story, so I verified it. Turns out it was about two dozen trees and 25 million dollars, just to put up a big tent for an Apple launch event. (Yes, the trees were removed.) What a tool, he just lost my respect.
> Ahead of the event, Ive pushed CEO Tim Cook to remove two dozen trees from the De Anza College campus next to the Flint Center for the Performing Arts to erect an extravagant white tent for the hands-on area. Such a gifted man… doing such an incredibly dumb thing. https://www.macworld.com/article/696590/apple-expose-jony-iv... Edit: - why’d Tim let him? - why’d the college let them, OK money, but couldn’t they have…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a friend at Google DeepMind who tells me that Google believes in AGI/superintelligence just as much as HN does, which is probably why no one with conviction wants to work there.
A few months ago I heard Demis Hassabis say something, albeit vague, I doubt he truly believed regarding AGI. That AGI is relatively near is the party line everywhere. That may contribute to creating toxic environments and lousy investment decisions. So here we go with the FOMO.
Is it no nearer than it was in 1750, 1850, 1950, 2001, or 2010? It feels nearer. Relatively near, as in it feels weird to imagine another two thousand years happening at current rate of progress without anyone stumbling on it.
Is the continuing increase in global computing power, the lowering cost to do any kind of experimentation, the increased spending on R&D, the cross-pollination of ideas, not moving the needle at all?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
keeping Search profitable without enshittifying it I don't think Google had much to do with it. It has way more to do with the internet concentrating into major communities where all the content is private. Even Reddit content is going this way. Most FB and Instagram content are private. All of Discord is unreachable by crawlers. Prior to this, just about everything on the web was open for crawlers since content want…
Google caused this by pushing people towards "brands" rather than individual pages. Those platforms only exposed the data necessary for SEO and Google refused to punish them for it.