6 ms·

This is such a complete misreading of what's happening. Not sure why I keep seeing this on HN.

by psbp 3y ago

dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
That's just one view (as is mine), no one knows what's actually happening. In my view Altman represents the 'lets get lots of money' side of things and not much else. The deals with MS, ME financiers, SoftBank, a Jony Ive colab makes that pretty clear. Maybe it's not that simple, but I'd say it's broadly correct.
- nathan11 3y ago
  It seems reasonable to say that AGI will take a ton of resources. You'll need investors for power, GPUs, researchers, data, and the list goes on. It's a lot easier to get there with viable commercial products than handouts. I'd be willing to bet that between Sam's approach and the theorized approach of the OpenAI board we're discussing, Sam's approach has a higher chance of success.
  - dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
    Since AGI isn't a thing, no one knows what it will look like or if it will even exist. The biggest breakthroughs in science do not come from those with the most money. It's all ideas.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      OTOH humans are a non-artificial GI, and we can use ourselves as an anchor for estimates of what we'd need for an artificial equivalent. About 1000x the complexity of GPT-3 and much slower would be the best guess right now.
      - dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
        It's looking at humans, how they're trained and their wetware makes me believe that AGI, as most people understand it, ie a super human like intelligence, will never exist. There will be powerful AI but it won't be human like in the way people think about it now.
        ben_w 3y ago
        That definition ought to be reserved for ASI (S meaning super) not AGI (G meaning general). That said I agree "human like" is unlikely, although LLMs and diffusion models are much closer than I was expecting.
        dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
        That's because their training source is human output. Human In Human Out (HIHO).
        ben_w 3y ago
        Even so, was expecting more dissimilarities or even just types of inappropriateness that are very human — humans are a broad bunch, no reason the LLMs wouldn't just default to snarky and lazy, like the example from the OpenAI Dev Day of someone who tried to fine tune on their slack messages, asked it to write something, and it said "Sure, I'll do it in the morning". Despite people calling them stochastic parrots and autocomplete on steroids, ChatGPT is behaving like it is trying to answer rather than merely trying to continue the text the user enters. I find this surprising.
    - a_wild_dandan 3y ago
      Precisely. Breakthroughs are often cleverer than brute force, “throw more compute/tokens at it” approaches. Turning some crucial algorithm from O(n) to O(log(n)) could be an unlock worth trillions of compute time dollars.

This is such a complete misreading of what's happening. Not sure why I keep seeing this on HN.

by psbp 3y ago

This is such a complete misreading of what's happening. Not sure why I keep seeing this on HN.

That's just one view (as is mine), no one knows what's actually happening. In my view Altman represents the 'lets get lots of money' side of things and not much else. The deals with MS, ME financiers, SoftBank, a Jony Ive colab makes that pretty clear. Maybe it's not that simple, but I'd say it's broadly correct.

nathan11 3y ago
It seems reasonable to say that AGI will take a ton of resources. You'll need investors for power, GPUs, researchers, data, and the list goes on. It's a lot easier to get there with viable commercial products than handouts. I'd be willing to bet that between Sam's approach and the theorized approach of the OpenAI board we're discussing, Sam's approach has a higher chance of success.
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
  Since AGI isn't a thing, no one knows what it will look like or if it will even exist. The biggest breakthroughs in science do not come from those with the most money. It's all ideas.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    OTOH humans are a non-artificial GI, and we can use ourselves as an anchor for estimates of what we'd need for an artificial equivalent. About 1000x the complexity of GPT-3 and much slower would be the best guess right now.
    - dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
      It's looking at humans, how they're trained and their wetware makes me believe that AGI, as most people understand it, ie a super human like intelligence, will never exist. There will be powerful AI but it won't be human like in the way people think about it now.
      - ben_w 3y ago
        That definition ought to be reserved for ASI (S meaning super) not AGI (G meaning general). That said I agree "human like" is unlikely, although LLMs and diffusion models are much closer than I was expecting.
        dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
        That's because their training source is human output. Human In Human Out (HIHO).
        ben_w 3y ago
        Even so, was expecting more dissimilarities or even just types of inappropriateness that are very human — humans are a broad bunch, no reason the LLMs wouldn't just default to snarky and lazy, like the example from the OpenAI Dev Day of someone who tried to fine tune on their slack messages, asked it to write something, and it said "Sure, I'll do it in the morning". Despite people calling them stochastic parrots and autocomplete on steroids, ChatGPT is behaving like it is trying to answer rather than merely trying to continue the text the user enters. I find this surprising.
  - a_wild_dandan 3y ago
    Precisely. Breakthroughs are often cleverer than brute force, “throw more compute/tokens at it” approaches. Turning some crucial algorithm from O(n) to O(log(n)) could be an unlock worth trillions of compute time dollars.