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

OpenAI researchers warned board of AI breakthrough ahead of CEO ouster

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

951–960 of 1001 posts

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

#951

Post by tim333 »

cduzz wrote: 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…

Humans are set up I think to intuitively understand 3d space as it's what we run around and try to survive in. Language models on the other hand are set up to understand language which humans can do also but I think with a different part of the brain. There probably is no reason why you couldn't set up a model to understand 3d space - I guess they do that a bit with self driving. A lot of animals like cats and squirrels are pretty good with 3d space also but less so with language.

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

#952

Post by smeej »

Closi wrote: post #645
nostrademons wrote: post #593

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…

Why would we teach kids maths then, when they can use a calculator? It's much easier and faster for them. I believe it's because having a foundational understanding of maths and logic is important when solving other problems, and if you are looking to create an AI that can generally solve all problems it should probably have some intuitive understanding of maths too. i.e. if we want an LLM to be able to solve unsolve…

> Why would we teach kids maths then, when they can use a calculator? It's much easier and faster for them.

I am five years older than my brother, and we happened to land just on opposite sides of when children were still being taught mental arithmetic and when it was assumed they would, in fact, have calculators in their pockets.

It drives him crazy that I can do basic day-to-day arithmetic in my head faster than he can get out his calculator to do it. He feels like he really did get cheated out of something useful because of the proliferation of technology.

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

#953

Post by visarga »

auggierose wrote: post #685
visarga wrote: post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> even the most experienced and informed professionals can be comfortably wrong That's the human hallucination problem. In science it's a very difficult issue to deal with, only in hindsight you can tell which papers from a given period were the good ones. It takes a whole scientific community to come up with the truth, and sometimes we fail.

No. It takes just one person to come up with the truth. It then can takes ages to convince the "scientific community".

Well, one person will usually add a tiny bit of detail to the "truth". It's still a collective task.

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

#954

Post by RamblingCTO »

trashtester wrote: post #925
RamblingCTO wrote: post #789

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still believe that A(G)I will consist of subsystems and different network architectures (if NN's are the path to that), just like we humans have.

Many of the "specialist" parts of the brain are still made from cortical columns, though. Also, they are in many cases partly interchangeable, with some reduction in efficiency. Transformers may be like that, in that they can do generalized learning from different types of input, with only minor modifications needed to optimize for different input (or output) modes.

Afaik some are similar, yes. But we also have different types of neurons etc. Maybe we'll get there with a generalist approach, but imho the first step is a patchwork of specialists.

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

#955

Post by AlexAndScripts »

93po wrote: post #929
jansan wrote: post #899

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, you could post a vast amount of comments into social media and see if and how others react to it. It's still humans doing the work, but they would not even know. If this was actually done (and this is just wild baseless speculation), this would be a good reason to let Sam go.

I see a lot of comments on reddit these days that are very clearly language models so it’s probably already happening on a large scale

Have you got an example you could show? I'm curious

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

#956

Post by wegfawefgawefg »

smeej wrote: post #952
Closi wrote: post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would we teach kids maths then, when they can use a calculator? It's much easier and faster for them. I believe it's because having a foundational understanding of maths and logic is important when solving other problems, and if you are looking to create an AI that can generally solve all problems it should probably have some intuitive understanding of maths too. i.e. if we want an LLM to be able to solve unsolve…

> Why would we teach kids maths then, when they can use a calculator? It's much easier and faster for them. I am five years older than my brother, and we happened to land just on opposite sides of when children were still being taught mental arithmetic and when it was assumed they would, in fact, have calculators in their pockets. It drives him crazy that I can do basic day-to-day arithmetic in my head faster than he…

Skull has limited volume. What room is unused by one capacity may be used by another.

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

#957

Post by wegfawefgawefg »

sgt101 wrote: post #774
nostrademons wrote: post #593

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…

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…

ML still cant do sin. Functions that repeat periodically.

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

#958

Post by omneity »

mullingitover wrote: post #513
omneity wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This does work to a certain extent, but doesn't really converge for significantly more complex tasks. (Source: tried to make all sorts of agents work on complex problems in a divide and conquer fashion) They eventually ... lose the thread.

Did you make a framework for the agents so they could delegate problems to an appropriate model, query a dataset, etc, or was it just turtles all the way down on GPT4? My hunch is that one big LLM isn't the answer, and we need specialization much like the brain has specialized regions for vision, language, spatial awareness, and so on.

To take the analogy of a company, the problem here is that management is really bad.

What you described is rather akin to hiring better workers, but we need better managers. Whether it’s a single or multiple models is more of an implementation detail, as long as there’s at least one model capable of satisfactory goal planning _and_ following.

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

#959

Post by adverbly »

_emna wrote: post #697
cduzz wrote: 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…

Have you tested your proposed function against i?

abs(i)

= sqrt(i^2)

= sqrt(-1)

= i

Now, i != 1... so clearly either the abs function you have in mind here is doing something that isn't quite aligned with the goal. If we assume that the goal of the absolute function is to always produce positive real numbers, the function is missing something to deal with imaginary components.

I'm not sure, but based on these cases so far, maybe you just need to "drop the i" in the same way as you need to "drop the negative" in the case of non-imaginary components. Now, "drop the i" is not an actual function so maybe there is something else that you can think of?

EDIT:

Maybe could do this(works for x = i at least...):

abs(x) = sqrt(sqrt((x^2)^2)

Now.. how about quaternions...

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

#960

Post by empath-nirvana »

_emna wrote: post #697
cduzz wrote: 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…

> Also, just to point out that my understanding of absolute value is different than your sons. Thats not to say one is right and another is wrong, but there are often different ways of seeing the same thing.

There is definitely a right and wrong answer for this, it's not a matter of opinion. There's two problems with your answer -- one is that it doesn't have a unique answer, the other is that it doesn't produce a real value, both of which are fairly core to the concept of a distance (or magnitude or norm), which the absolute value is an example of.

Post reply on HN