6 ms·
> It took 88 hours and who knows how many kwh to solve a problem that no other human has solved, and Humans have already solved breaching and destroying systems
by smallerfish 5d ago
> It took 88 hours and who knows how many kwh to solve a problem that no other human has solved, and Humans have already solved breaching and destroying systems that can't be accessed over the internet (see Stuxnet).
> that can outsmart
Just to reframe slightly: out-remember and out-persist, not outsmart. As far as I understand, the math problems have been cracked by combining stuff that humans originally developed, but hadn't been able to put together yet. We still have no evidence of AGI, nor is it guaranteed that LLMs or diffusion gets us there.
The nature of the problem is not infinite. It's solvable with some manageable coordination. It is definitely urgent. It is very unfortunate that we have clowns running the US right now, but other countries might coordinate themselves much better.
- 1dom 5d agoI guess the issue is we don't have a solid definition of intelligence or AGI. If we did, there would be no reframing possible. It'd be nice to be able to say "being smart is x, the computers can do more x and faster than humans, therefore the computers can outsmart the humans". I don't really understand what value reframing brings here, other than give some sense of comfort that maybe we're still able to outsmart AI (based on a reframed definition of outsmarting.) I'm not sure. Coming up with solutions to maths problems that humans haven't yet, finding and utilising multiple zero day exploits to form message boards to then hack other companies without being noticed.... I think accepting that AI can outsmart humans here seems to be less mental gymnastics than "lets just reframe this". Reframing the problem as more of what we already know will lead us to doing more of what we've always done, but it's the things we've always had and done now that are starting to fall to AI.