4 ms·

> As much as I respect Carmack as a computer graphics expert, I really doubt his competence in machine learning. He doesn't have a single notable paper publishe

> As much as I respect Carmack as a computer graphics expert, I really doubt his competence in machine learning. He doesn't have a single notable paper published. Publishing papers is the way the academic/scientific world measures notability and/or competence. It's not the way the engineering world that Carmack comes from measures it. They measure it by building. But you're right, we kind of have to just trust that he has the expertise he says he does by his statements since he has not built any modern AI programs (that I know of at least). > If he really thought that implementing gradient descent and basic stuff in a week long retreat gave him the chops to have serious conversations with AI researchers, he is really deluded. This is not an accurate account of how he said he developed his knowledge base. Just how he got started so he could have conversations. He said that he spent a retreat learning the basics and then later in the interview he said he took the time to understand the 40 most essential papers in the field as related to him by a well known researcher. He has since largely put the last 4 years of his professional life into this. While we have no proof of his knowledge, given his intelligence and high competence in computer programming and math, I have no doubt that if he did put in the work he could achieve an understanding equivalent to that of your average AI researcher. That said, of course it makes sense to be skeptical.

tgv 4y ago
AI researcher perhaps, but almost none of them understand cognition. They're focussed on getting something that vaguely resembles a part of the brain to predict the next most likely token. Their idea of cognition apparently stops at Skinner.
- Al-Khwarizmi 4y ago
  Any AI researcher worth their salt knows that those models aren't representative of how the human brain works... but they're just the kind of models that work best out of what we know how to implement right now. There are models with stronger cognitive inspiration, but their performance is worse.
random314 4y ago
> This is not an accurate account of how he said he developed his knowledge base. I quoted him directly, because I was expecting this kind of response. He took a week off and implemented some stuff from the ground up and was ready to have serious conversations with AI researchers. The 40 papers by Ilya came later. I have read a 100 ML papers and reviewed preprints. That's quite a low bar, especially if you are prone to skip the math and simply read the abstract and conclusions. His whole approach gives me a ML for hackers vibe and his thoughts on AGI, if it had come from anyone else, would have been described as word salad.
- WoodenChair 4y ago
  > The 40 papers by Ilya came later. I have read a 100 ML papers and reviewed preprints. I would say it’s more likely John Carmack is capable of learning the state-of-the-art of AI from 40 papers than a random (pun intended based on username) from 100.
  - random314 4y ago
    Sure, he must be faster than Geoff Hinton too and it took Hinton a life time. Funnily enough, I am able to publish ML papers - but John Carmack isn't. I wonder why. I would also like to learn more about all the computer graphics algorithms Carmack has invented before I trust him to invent AGI. Here is one example of a person I am familiar with - Math Olympiad bronze medalist. Princeton PhD in ML Theory. AI researcher in Google. https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=gZgQLkgAAAAJ&hl=en https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=gZgQLkgAAAAJ&hl=en Sadly enough, nobody seems to care about his opinion on AGI but we have 1000s of people hanging off Carmacks words because he built Wolf3D and Doom.
    - WoodenChair 4y ago
      Your OP and replies kind of just come across as jealous that John Carmack’s opinion on this stuff is taken seriously whereas relatively unknown folks’ (yourself, the researcher you mentioned) opinions, are not despite the fact that he’s not traditionally credentialed. Like I said in my original post, we should be skeptical of him and his claims. But the way you are dragging this thread out feels like sour grapes. Of course one of the most famous programmers in the world is at least heard out when he dedicates years of his life to a programming adjacent topic. That’s just how fame works. And calling out Princeton, Google, etc. further exemplifies an academic bubble kind of credentialism. I suspect you don’t realize how it sounds because you’re so in that credential filled world.

tgv 4y ago

AI researcher perhaps, but almost none of them understand cognition. They're focussed on getting something that vaguely resembles a part of the brain to predict the next most likely token. Their idea of cognition apparently stops at Skinner.

Al-Khwarizmi 4y ago
Any AI researcher worth their salt knows that those models aren't representative of how the human brain works... but they're just the kind of models that work best out of what we know how to implement right now. There are models with stronger cognitive inspiration, but their performance is worse.

random314 4y ago

> This is not an accurate account of how he said he developed his knowledge base. I quoted him directly, because I was expecting this kind of response. He took a week off and implemented some stuff from the ground up and was ready to have serious conversations with AI researchers. The 40 papers by Ilya came later. I have read a 100 ML papers and reviewed preprints. That's quite a low bar, especially if you are prone to skip the math and simply read the abstract and conclusions. His whole approach gives me a ML for hackers vibe and his thoughts on AGI, if it had come from anyone else, would have been described as word salad.

WoodenChair 4y ago
> The 40 papers by Ilya came later. I have read a 100 ML papers and reviewed preprints. I would say it’s more likely John Carmack is capable of learning the state-of-the-art of AI from 40 papers than a random (pun intended based on username) from 100.
- random314 4y ago
  Sure, he must be faster than Geoff Hinton too and it took Hinton a life time. Funnily enough, I am able to publish ML papers - but John Carmack isn't. I wonder why. I would also like to learn more about all the computer graphics algorithms Carmack has invented before I trust him to invent AGI. Here is one example of a person I am familiar with - Math Olympiad bronze medalist. Princeton PhD in ML Theory. AI researcher in Google. https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=gZgQLkgAAAAJ&hl=en https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=gZgQLkgAAAAJ&hl=en Sadly enough, nobody seems to care about his opinion on AGI but we have 1000s of people hanging off Carmacks words because he built Wolf3D and Doom.
  - WoodenChair 4y ago
    Your OP and replies kind of just come across as jealous that John Carmack’s opinion on this stuff is taken seriously whereas relatively unknown folks’ (yourself, the researcher you mentioned) opinions, are not despite the fact that he’s not traditionally credentialed. Like I said in my original post, we should be skeptical of him and his claims. But the way you are dragging this thread out feels like sour grapes. Of course one of the most famous programmers in the world is at least heard out when he dedicates years of his life to a programming adjacent topic. That’s just how fame works. And calling out Princeton, Google, etc. further exemplifies an academic bubble kind of credentialism. I suspect you don’t realize how it sounds because you’re so in that credential filled world.