15 ms·

I have this strange sensation that I can't put into words that somehow we are on the brink of unveiling an entirely new paradigm of AIs or perhaps even of combi

I have this strange sensation that I can't put into words that somehow we are on the brink of unveiling an entirely new paradigm of AIs or perhaps even of combining AI with classical algorithms in a way to rapidly iterate between each other (and sensor data) that will instantly 10x or 100x current capabilities. Anyone else feel this?

cyanydeez 3mo ago
no. we're approach a sigmoid. AI is bloated carcass and we're tweaking out the size of the models and speed they'll run on smaller hardware. I think to feel what you're feeling, you've bought into "all we need is more context". I think evolution demonstrates that's not really true.
- chimpanzee2 3mo ago
  would you really bet that this is it? there is nothing beyond this? reminds me of the famous anecdote of a 19th century physics professor who said "there is nothing left to be discovered in physics, only minor corrections" then came Einstein...
  - seanhunter 3mo ago
    That wasn’t just a physics professor that was William Thompson aka Lord Kelvin (the dude the temperature unit is named after and one of the most important mathematical physicists of the 19th century [1]), who also said that heavier than air flight was physically impossible only a couple of weeks before the Wright Brothers (and presumably in spite of having at least once in his lifetime seen a bird). Proof that you can be both very smart and simultaneously a bit of a jackass. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Kelvin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Kelvin
    - cyanydeez 3mo ago
      I love these arguments "You know, we thought we couldn't cross the ocean, and now we did!" This means we can just jump over to mars, then explore other planets, etc, etc. We know tons of regimes where there is non-continuous progress. Finding a smart dude with an anecdote does not invalidate the breadth and width of all human experience with non-continuous systems. Some dude thought all fluid was newtonian, and then we discovered non-newtonian fluid. It does exactly what yuou don't expect. Which basically demos physics is complex but that still doesn't mean progress is fluid.
      - seanhunter 3mo ago
        Definitely. It’s a lesson for me in remaining humble and not making too many confident predictions.
        cyanydeez 3mo ago
        while cute, that doesn't address the size and magnitude of the "AGI" and Singularity that AI proponents claim, and definitely not the person with anxiety that they're some how going to be put into the "permanent underclass" Another good line to look at is how people believe in ghosts: people with established religions without "ghosts" are less likely to believe in ghosts than people with atheism, even when they'd supposedly be skeptics superstitious claims. Having functional paradigms is important, and being confident that there isn't a magical extrapolation into AGI is healthier than there being some magical exponential increase that you have to ride the dragon. Sorry man, we're not solipsistic here. There are reasonable beliefs that are justifiable, instructive and then there are ones that require cherry picking technology indistinguishable from magic without reference to reality and physics.
        wwweston 3mo ago
        I’ve totally lost the thread here but this is interesting. Who are the religions without ghosts? And is the overall point “just because we’ve made big leaps of progress doesn’t mean every challenge is tractable let alone a moonshot sprint away especially those we have solid theoretical limits on”? That’s a point I certainly find amenable to I just want to make sure I’m not missing something more subtle or sophisticated.
  - cyanydeez 3mo ago
    see, I don't need to "bet this"; the inverse is true: the people placing large bets are either going to get their AGI, or fail miserably. I don't need to bet anything. I'm not a sociopath who thinks the AI god needs to be built, appeased, etc. That's the torment nexus. So, it's pretty easy to see realistically if you are satisified with local models and how they affect what you actually do. I can see the POV of a software engineer that isn't specialized to any specific topic being replaced by various models. But again, I see the sigmoid, not the "AGI" or the "this baby has grow very big in 1 year, urely it'll become a giant in 5.
- geysersam 3mo ago
  They said "there are algorithmic changes that remains to be discovered" and you said they bought into the idea that "all we need is more context". Seems like opposites to me.
digdugdirk 3mo ago
I think part of it is the feeling of false understanding that comes from using llms regularly. They let you operate at a higher conceptual level, and they paper over enough of the actual details that your conceptual model might not actually be correct. I'm a mechanical engineer by training, and have similar vibes with the similarities I see between llm training and metallurgy. I could probably put together a formal concept for these vibes at this point, but is there actually a "there" there? I have no idea. And it would take me years to actually dive in and learn everything to gain the deep understanding that would be required to know if I'm just experiencing my own brand of AI psychosis or not. It's a brave new world, that's for sure.
- seanhunter 3mo ago
  Andrej Karpathy said something along the lines of “while you can use llms to outsource some of your thinking, you can’t use them to outsource your understanding “.
duped 3mo ago
> that will instantly 10x or 100x current capabilities. In the 1920s we had legions of very smart, highly trained (arguably better trained in mathematics) basically chucking relays and vacuum tubes together with reckless abandon to build the most valuable and complicated systems mankind had ever come up with (telephony, radio, radar, etc). They had no idea how they worked and only ad-hoc rules of thumb to construct them. It took the insight of a handful of these people both in and outside of industry to formalize the theory of operation of most of what people were already building and then use that theory to establish formal design practices. The people before these theories were realized were exceptionally smart and good at what they did, it's just they didn't have better design tools to reason about the things they were building. And once they had those tools they didn't 10x or 100x overnight.

cyanydeez 3mo ago

no. we're approach a sigmoid. AI is bloated carcass and we're tweaking out the size of the models and speed they'll run on smaller hardware. I think to feel what you're feeling, you've bought into "all we need is more context". I think evolution demonstrates that's not really true.

chimpanzee2 3mo ago
would you really bet that this is it? there is nothing beyond this? reminds me of the famous anecdote of a 19th century physics professor who said "there is nothing left to be discovered in physics, only minor corrections" then came Einstein...
- seanhunter 3mo ago
  That wasn’t just a physics professor that was William Thompson aka Lord Kelvin (the dude the temperature unit is named after and one of the most important mathematical physicists of the 19th century [1]), who also said that heavier than air flight was physically impossible only a couple of weeks before the Wright Brothers (and presumably in spite of having at least once in his lifetime seen a bird). Proof that you can be both very smart and simultaneously a bit of a jackass. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Kelvin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Kelvin
  - cyanydeez 3mo ago
    I love these arguments "You know, we thought we couldn't cross the ocean, and now we did!" This means we can just jump over to mars, then explore other planets, etc, etc. We know tons of regimes where there is non-continuous progress. Finding a smart dude with an anecdote does not invalidate the breadth and width of all human experience with non-continuous systems. Some dude thought all fluid was newtonian, and then we discovered non-newtonian fluid. It does exactly what yuou don't expect. Which basically demos physics is complex but that still doesn't mean progress is fluid.
    - seanhunter 3mo ago
      Definitely. It’s a lesson for me in remaining humble and not making too many confident predictions.
      - cyanydeez 3mo ago
        while cute, that doesn't address the size and magnitude of the "AGI" and Singularity that AI proponents claim, and definitely not the person with anxiety that they're some how going to be put into the "permanent underclass" Another good line to look at is how people believe in ghosts: people with established religions without "ghosts" are less likely to believe in ghosts than people with atheism, even when they'd supposedly be skeptics superstitious claims. Having functional paradigms is important, and being confident that there isn't a magical extrapolation into AGI is healthier than there being some magical exponential increase that you have to ride the dragon. Sorry man, we're not solipsistic here. There are reasonable beliefs that are justifiable, instructive and then there are ones that require cherry picking technology indistinguishable from magic without reference to reality and physics.
        wwweston 3mo ago
        I’ve totally lost the thread here but this is interesting. Who are the religions without ghosts? And is the overall point “just because we’ve made big leaps of progress doesn’t mean every challenge is tractable let alone a moonshot sprint away especially those we have solid theoretical limits on”? That’s a point I certainly find amenable to I just want to make sure I’m not missing something more subtle or sophisticated.
- cyanydeez 3mo ago
  see, I don't need to "bet this"; the inverse is true: the people placing large bets are either going to get their AGI, or fail miserably. I don't need to bet anything. I'm not a sociopath who thinks the AI god needs to be built, appeased, etc. That's the torment nexus. So, it's pretty easy to see realistically if you are satisified with local models and how they affect what you actually do. I can see the POV of a software engineer that isn't specialized to any specific topic being replaced by various models. But again, I see the sigmoid, not the "AGI" or the "this baby has grow very big in 1 year, urely it'll become a giant in 5.
geysersam 3mo ago
They said "there are algorithmic changes that remains to be discovered" and you said they bought into the idea that "all we need is more context". Seems like opposites to me.

digdugdirk 3mo ago

I think part of it is the feeling of false understanding that comes from using llms regularly. They let you operate at a higher conceptual level, and they paper over enough of the actual details that your conceptual model might not actually be correct. I'm a mechanical engineer by training, and have similar vibes with the similarities I see between llm training and metallurgy. I could probably put together a formal concept for these vibes at this point, but is there actually a "there" there? I have no idea. And it would take me years to actually dive in and learn everything to gain the deep understanding that would be required to know if I'm just experiencing my own brand of AI psychosis or not. It's a brave new world, that's for sure.

seanhunter 3mo ago
Andrej Karpathy said something along the lines of “while you can use llms to outsource some of your thinking, you can’t use them to outsource your understanding “.

duped 3mo ago

> that will instantly 10x or 100x current capabilities. In the 1920s we had legions of very smart, highly trained (arguably better trained in mathematics) basically chucking relays and vacuum tubes together with reckless abandon to build the most valuable and complicated systems mankind had ever come up with (telephony, radio, radar, etc). They had no idea how they worked and only ad-hoc rules of thumb to construct them. It took the insight of a handful of these people both in and outside of industry to formalize the theory of operation of most of what people were already building and then use that theory to establish formal design practices. The people before these theories were realized were exceptionally smart and good at what they did, it's just they didn't have better design tools to reason about the things they were building. And once they had those tools they didn't 10x or 100x overnight.