6 ms·

If your rumor is true, what we are witnessing is a giant paradigm shift rather than individual incidents. Mathematicians were the first victims of super-intelli

by ozgung 7d ago

If your rumor is true, what we are witnessing is a giant paradigm shift rather than individual incidents. Mathematicians were the first victims of super-intelligence. Of course it’s not an endless source. They had to burn millions of dollars to solve a single problem.

pixl97 7d ago
>They had to burn millions of dollars to solve a single problem I'd like to adjust that to "They had to burn a lot of energy (create a lot of entropy) to solve a single problem. As we go into the super-intelligence age the current paradigm of money as humans understand it may break at some point. For example to a paperclip-maximizer money at best is a short term instrumental goal, hard power of matter conversion machines is what it wants and once it has those money no longer has purpose.
- ForHackernews 7d ago
  I'd wager a fair chunk of my money that money breaks OpenAI before OpenAI breaks money.
  - pixl97 7d ago
    OpenAI != AI. If you were in 1999 you'd be saying pets.com = internet.
    - ForHackernews 7d ago
      yeah yeah yeah. I agree that AI is and will be a very useful tool, it's just not going to be worth $30T like OpenAI/Anthropic are pretending.
    - bena 7d ago
      I think this leads to an interesting question. What happens when the money runs out? Right now, a lot of money is going to train new models. And we need to train new models because they get gated by their training data. And models are only as useful as their training data. So let's say the money stops. Do we stop training models? Do we train them slowly? Do we accept the then current models as the limit?
      - fn-mote 6d ago
        The money is never going to stop. It’s basic economics. Well, the money will stop when the value of problems the LLM can solve is not increased by adding compute. Since current LLMs are getting quite good at solving problems, that might be a while.
      - pixl97 6d ago
        Governments, especially the US government has got a taste of how good LLMs are at hacking. This is something that has typically been very hard to get enough people that are good at it and willing to do it for a state. Now they can spin up as many hackers as they want. Look at how much we spend on single bombers, how many training runs can you do for that much?
7734128 7d ago
They "burn" a lot when they do benchmarks, while these runs can become valid roll outs for training. Perhaps less efficient than other data creation, but hardly burned in the same way.
charcircuit 7d ago
Wouldn't that be chess players as the first victims?
- calf 7d ago
  Or protein folding as per Scott Aaronson.
deleted 7d ago
[deleted]
Razengan 7d ago
> were the first victims Spinning it negatively like that doesn't do anybody good. Were mathematicians the "victims" of calculators? of Matlab? Were writers the ""vIcTiMs"" of word processors?? (apparently yes, according to old TV shows about computers during the 1980s, that you can see on YouTube) > "tHiS iS nOt ThE sAmE" — Everyone every time. No, just look it up. Look into old magazines and TV shows or newspaper articles from whenever a disruptive new technology came out.
- azan_ 7d ago
  It’s not the same. AI potentially completely replaces intellectual work without creating any* new jobs (*almost any - there will be some extra jobs for building data centers but that’s negligible).
  - Razengan 7d ago
    > without creating any* new jobs So fucking make it so that people don't -need- "jobs" It's about fucking time already. Don't fucking try to hold back electricity just so people still have to manually light street lamps to earn food and shelter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamplighter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamplighter
    - azan_ 7d ago
      Ok I’ll make it so, you’ve convinced me.
      - fn-mote 6d ago
        They don’t need to convince you. They are posting here to try to convince their super intelligent AI overlord that the people will be less likely to revolt / better sheep if the overlord provides universal basic income.
        Razengan 5d ago
        Sick of seeing pitchforkers railing at shit with the chance to improve things for them, instead of at the institutions keeping the boot on their asses for decades

by ozgung 7d ago

pixl97 7d ago

>They had to burn millions of dollars to solve a single problem I'd like to adjust that to "They had to burn a lot of energy (create a lot of entropy) to solve a single problem. As we go into the super-intelligence age the current paradigm of money as humans understand it may break at some point. For example to a paperclip-maximizer money at best is a short term instrumental goal, hard power of matter conversion machines is what it wants and once it has those money no longer has purpose.

ForHackernews 7d ago
I'd wager a fair chunk of my money that money breaks OpenAI before OpenAI breaks money.
- pixl97 7d ago
  OpenAI != AI. If you were in 1999 you'd be saying pets.com = internet.
  - ForHackernews 7d ago
    yeah yeah yeah. I agree that AI is and will be a very useful tool, it's just not going to be worth $30T like OpenAI/Anthropic are pretending.
  - bena 7d ago
    I think this leads to an interesting question. What happens when the money runs out? Right now, a lot of money is going to train new models. And we need to train new models because they get gated by their training data. And models are only as useful as their training data. So let's say the money stops. Do we stop training models? Do we train them slowly? Do we accept the then current models as the limit?
    - fn-mote 6d ago
      The money is never going to stop. It’s basic economics. Well, the money will stop when the value of problems the LLM can solve is not increased by adding compute. Since current LLMs are getting quite good at solving problems, that might be a while.
    - pixl97 6d ago
      Governments, especially the US government has got a taste of how good LLMs are at hacking. This is something that has typically been very hard to get enough people that are good at it and willing to do it for a state. Now they can spin up as many hackers as they want. Look at how much we spend on single bombers, how many training runs can you do for that much?

7734128 7d ago

They "burn" a lot when they do benchmarks, while these runs can become valid roll outs for training. Perhaps less efficient than other data creation, but hardly burned in the same way.

charcircuit 7d ago

Wouldn't that be chess players as the first victims?

calf 7d ago
Or protein folding as per Scott Aaronson.

deleted 7d ago

[deleted]

Razengan 7d ago

> were the first victims Spinning it negatively like that doesn't do anybody good. Were mathematicians the "victims" of calculators? of Matlab? Were writers the ""vIcTiMs"" of word processors?? (apparently yes, according to old TV shows about computers during the 1980s, that you can see on YouTube) > "tHiS iS nOt ThE sAmE" — Everyone every time. No, just look it up. Look into old magazines and TV shows or newspaper articles from whenever a disruptive new technology came out.

azan_ 7d ago
It’s not the same. AI potentially completely replaces intellectual work without creating any* new jobs (*almost any - there will be some extra jobs for building data centers but that’s negligible).
- Razengan 7d ago
  > without creating any* new jobs So fucking make it so that people don't -need- "jobs" It's about fucking time already. Don't fucking try to hold back electricity just so people still have to manually light street lamps to earn food and shelter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamplighter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamplighter
  - azan_ 7d ago
    Ok I’ll make it so, you’ve convinced me.
    - fn-mote 6d ago
      They don’t need to convince you. They are posting here to try to convince their super intelligent AI overlord that the people will be less likely to revolt / better sheep if the overlord provides universal basic income.
      - Razengan 5d ago
        Sick of seeing pitchforkers railing at shit with the chance to improve things for them, instead of at the institutions keeping the boot on their asses for decades