4 ms·

I’m betting 2025-2030 as well. We have quantum AI math developed and photonic accelerators are currently in development. The moment those work reliably, machin

I’m betting 2025-2030 as well. We have quantum AI math developed and photonic accelerators are currently in development. The moment those work reliably, machine learning will hit an exponential curve — particularly since those photonic circuits are already partially designed by AI. The feedback loop of quantum-accelerated AI refining its own hardware is one breakthrough away.

whimsicalism 5y ago
Stop reading so much popsci, it is bad for thought.
- zmgsabst 5y ago
  I’m sorry that you’re ignorant. Microsoft QuArC has published a number of papers on QAI, and I both work on photonics and discuss with other companies who do the accelerators being developed. Accelerating AI with photonics is an active area of development. I think you’re projecting that your knowledge of this is only based on pop-sci.
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    There are a ton of unsolved problems in both ML and quantum computing with photonics. We are so far away from being able to do this with photonic quantum computers that I am really skeptical that you actively work in this field. FWIW, I know quite a lot of people involved in AMO physics (which involves related techniques) and work in ML myself. 2025-2030 is way too soon for these things to come to fruition.
    - zmgsabst 5y ago
      I guess you know less talented people then. We’re not more than a single breakthrough from being able to make photonic accelerators — and there’s already worked out algorithms to accelerate ML once those circuits are available. I’m confident in 2025-2030.
      - whimsicalism 5y ago
        This is one of the ~top two universities in the country for AMO research, so I don't think so. Such false bravado, not going to keep replying.
        zmgsabst 5y ago
        > Such false bravado, not going to keep replying. Yawn — you’re the one who came in with ad hominems and trying to tell other people what they work on, lol I’m sorry your friends are ignorant and you don’t know what I do.
- more_corn 5y ago
  This is an interesting criticism. I grew up on wired magazine and sci-fi. Even then I recognized the dangers of shallow knowledge and maybe I can’t avoid it even now. But I’m actively working with GPT3 and I must say it is startling. I’d say we’re a few years from automating most knowledge tasks (I created a tool that I chose not to release because it was too powerful). We could be a decade from general purpose artificial intelligence (or it might not be possible at all. For a fun thought experiment ask GPT3 if it is truly conscious). The answer it gave me was surprisingly coherent wise and useful. From there (AGI) we could be minutes away from artificial super intelligence. That starts to look a bit like a point pst which standard prediction breaks down. But like you say, pop sci might be hindering rational thinking on this score.
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    I used to work in physics, which seems to attract a lot of people with shallow knowledge, and ML seems to be going in a similar direction. To be clear, I'm actually quite bullish on AI (well, bullish on it ultimately happening, not necessarily on how it will impact humanity). I was mostly reacting to the timeline for photonic quantum computing rather than on ML advancement, actually. Language modeling is extremely impressive. I've been saying since 2017 that modeling language is basically modeling the world/intelligence, but at the time most people did not seem to believe that. People still don't really seem to believe it, but I think the smarter among us are beginning to now that they see GPT-X & PaLM. I think there is still a substantial gap from "good language model" to "embodied agent taking actions in the world" that we have not bridged and will be potentially pretty hard to, more than mere "minutes."
    - zmgsabst 5y ago
      > will be potentially pretty hard to, more than mere "minutes." This makes it sound like you’re arguing against something no one said — which makes it a weird thing to quote.
      - whimsicalism 5y ago
        A quote from the GP > The answer it gave me was surprisingly coherent wise and useful. From there (AGI) we could be minutes away from artificial super intelligence What am I missing? I assumed of course that they didn't mean literal minutes but more metaphorically, but my reply was also using it in the metaphoric sense - it could be a potentially heavy lift to go from point A to point B. e: I guess I am missing that they are conflating GPT with AGI and saying it will be minutes from AGI to artificial super intelligence in the literal sense. That, I actually do agree with, but I don't think GPT-X or PaLM or LMs in general qualify as such.
10amxn10 5y ago

whimsicalism 5y ago

Stop reading so much popsci, it is bad for thought.

zmgsabst 5y ago
I’m sorry that you’re ignorant. Microsoft QuArC has published a number of papers on QAI, and I both work on photonics and discuss with other companies who do the accelerators being developed. Accelerating AI with photonics is an active area of development. I think you’re projecting that your knowledge of this is only based on pop-sci.
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  There are a ton of unsolved problems in both ML and quantum computing with photonics. We are so far away from being able to do this with photonic quantum computers that I am really skeptical that you actively work in this field. FWIW, I know quite a lot of people involved in AMO physics (which involves related techniques) and work in ML myself. 2025-2030 is way too soon for these things to come to fruition.
  - zmgsabst 5y ago
    I guess you know less talented people then. We’re not more than a single breakthrough from being able to make photonic accelerators — and there’s already worked out algorithms to accelerate ML once those circuits are available. I’m confident in 2025-2030.
    - whimsicalism 5y ago
      This is one of the ~top two universities in the country for AMO research, so I don't think so. Such false bravado, not going to keep replying.
      - zmgsabst 5y ago
        > Such false bravado, not going to keep replying. Yawn — you’re the one who came in with ad hominems and trying to tell other people what they work on, lol I’m sorry your friends are ignorant and you don’t know what I do.
more_corn 5y ago
This is an interesting criticism. I grew up on wired magazine and sci-fi. Even then I recognized the dangers of shallow knowledge and maybe I can’t avoid it even now. But I’m actively working with GPT3 and I must say it is startling. I’d say we’re a few years from automating most knowledge tasks (I created a tool that I chose not to release because it was too powerful). We could be a decade from general purpose artificial intelligence (or it might not be possible at all. For a fun thought experiment ask GPT3 if it is truly conscious). The answer it gave me was surprisingly coherent wise and useful. From there (AGI) we could be minutes away from artificial super intelligence. That starts to look a bit like a point pst which standard prediction breaks down. But like you say, pop sci might be hindering rational thinking on this score.
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  I used to work in physics, which seems to attract a lot of people with shallow knowledge, and ML seems to be going in a similar direction. To be clear, I'm actually quite bullish on AI (well, bullish on it ultimately happening, not necessarily on how it will impact humanity). I was mostly reacting to the timeline for photonic quantum computing rather than on ML advancement, actually. Language modeling is extremely impressive. I've been saying since 2017 that modeling language is basically modeling the world/intelligence, but at the time most people did not seem to believe that. People still don't really seem to believe it, but I think the smarter among us are beginning to now that they see GPT-X & PaLM. I think there is still a substantial gap from "good language model" to "embodied agent taking actions in the world" that we have not bridged and will be potentially pretty hard to, more than mere "minutes."
  - zmgsabst 5y ago
    > will be potentially pretty hard to, more than mere "minutes." This makes it sound like you’re arguing against something no one said — which makes it a weird thing to quote.
    - whimsicalism 5y ago
      A quote from the GP > The answer it gave me was surprisingly coherent wise and useful. From there (AGI) we could be minutes away from artificial super intelligence What am I missing? I assumed of course that they didn't mean literal minutes but more metaphorically, but my reply was also using it in the metaphoric sense - it could be a potentially heavy lift to go from point A to point B. e: I guess I am missing that they are conflating GPT with AGI and saying it will be minutes from AGI to artificial super intelligence in the literal sense. That, I actually do agree with, but I don't think GPT-X or PaLM or LMs in general qualify as such.

10amxn10 5y ago