5 ms·

Well, this shores up one of ChatGPT's biggest weaknesses, especially GPT4's. I wonder when we'll see the pace of refinement for this drop off.

by TOMDM 4y ago

mustacheemperor 4y ago
If we never do, I think that means we are currently at the outset of the singularity.
jacquesm 4y ago
If wonder if it will drop off.
- oliveshell 4y ago
  I cannot imagine a scenario where it doesn’t drop off. The massive recent improvements in GPT’s performance are a result of giving the model enormous numbers of parameters and a wealth of training data. That’s it. Surely this paradigm cannot scale up indefinitely. Moore’s law is moribund. Are we going to build a supercomputer that encircles the globe just for the purpose of trying to make the biggest LLM we can? Also, even we could scale indefinitely, there is no reason to suspect that an LLM with hundreds of quadrillions of parameters will somehow magically spontaneously become an AGI. It’s tempting to think that the line will go up forever, but that just doesn’t square with reality. Anyone whose response to this is something like “well, maybe all the brain is doing is just the same thing that LLMs do” is fundamentally underestimating the complexity of the human brain by many orders of magnitude. It is the most complex system in the known universe and we do not understand it at all. I am generally optimistic about AI, but to me it is the absolute height of delusional hubris to think that superintelligence is likely to somehow “fall out” of a language model, just as soon as we make one large enough and give it enough training data. To come to such a conclusion reveals a failure to grasp the magnitude of the problem.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    > Surely this paradigm cannot scale up indefinitely. It doesn't have to. It just has to scale up long enough to start causing real societal problems, if it isn't already there. Also it's kind of annoying to see you dismiss any of this criticism as 'alarmist' in thread after thread when if you look back a year at best the state that we are in today was said to be at least several years away by the same people who are continuously harping on the fact that this isn't AGI yet. The point is: it doesn't have to be to do massive damage and from that perspective it might as well be. I don't particularly care if I get bitten by the cat or by the dog, I care about being bitten.
    - oliveshell 4y ago
      I didn’t dismiss anything. I didn’t say anything was alarmist. Please don’t put words in my mouth. You didn’t say anything about societal problems. You wondered if the growth will ever stop, and I tried my best in good faith to give the reasons why I believe that it will. If the question is “when will the models be powerful enough to cause societal problems”, then that is a completely different question and I think the answer to it is clearly “they already are”. (But not because they are superintelligent or anything close to AGI.)
      - jacquesm 4y ago
        > I didn’t dismiss anything. I didn’t say anything was alarmist. Please don’t put words in my mouth. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35276186 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35276186 "We’re still decades from AGI in my opinion, and the Chicken Little types ought to pace themselves, is all I’m saying. "
        oliveshell 4y ago
        Oh— I see now you were making reference to a comment I made in reply to someone else. Yes, that was something that I said and I stand by it. I do not see any reason to be concerned about AI as an existential threat at the present moment. I have explained in my previous comment why I feel this is the case; if you feel that this view is recklessly dismissive and wish to change my mind, then I invite you to do the same. Edit: I’m sorry for any excessive crispiness or combativeness in my tone; I can see now from your post history that you are likely arguing in good faith. I have grown weary of arguing against concern trolls lately on this topic, so I may have misjudged your initial comment based on its brevity. Sorry about that.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - jazzyjackson 4y ago
    > massive recent improvements in GPT’s performance are a result of giving the model enormous numbers of parameters and a wealth of training data. That’s it. extremely dismissive of the labor that went into converting AGI from "impossible" to "expensive"
  - int_19h 4y ago
    Firstly, LLMs are an embarrassingly parallel problem, so yes, you can actually get quite far simply by throwing more hardware at it. The catch is that the gain is not linear - e.g. you need 4x more VRAM for 2x inputs / context window size. But if doing that unlocks more useful emergent properties, it may well be a worthwhile trade-off - and it doesn't have to spontaneously become an AGI for that to happen. So I think we'll be playing this game for quite a long time.
- childintime 4y ago
  Right, it will already be out of our view when it does.
ChatGTP 4y ago
It’s not going to stop, we’re on the rocket ship to eternal gains and prosperity now. Strap in, next stop is technological utopia !

Well, this shores up one of ChatGPT's biggest weaknesses, especially GPT4's. I wonder when we'll see the pace of refinement for this drop off.

by TOMDM 4y ago

Well, this shores up one of ChatGPT's biggest weaknesses, especially GPT4's. I wonder when we'll see the pace of refinement for this drop off.

mustacheemperor 4y ago

If we never do, I think that means we are currently at the outset of the singularity.

jacquesm 4y ago

If wonder if it will drop off.

oliveshell 4y ago
I cannot imagine a scenario where it doesn’t drop off. The massive recent improvements in GPT’s performance are a result of giving the model enormous numbers of parameters and a wealth of training data. That’s it. Surely this paradigm cannot scale up indefinitely. Moore’s law is moribund. Are we going to build a supercomputer that encircles the globe just for the purpose of trying to make the biggest LLM we can? Also, even we could scale indefinitely, there is no reason to suspect that an LLM with hundreds of quadrillions of parameters will somehow magically spontaneously become an AGI. It’s tempting to think that the line will go up forever, but that just doesn’t square with reality. Anyone whose response to this is something like “well, maybe all the brain is doing is just the same thing that LLMs do” is fundamentally underestimating the complexity of the human brain by many orders of magnitude. It is the most complex system in the known universe and we do not understand it at all. I am generally optimistic about AI, but to me it is the absolute height of delusional hubris to think that superintelligence is likely to somehow “fall out” of a language model, just as soon as we make one large enough and give it enough training data. To come to such a conclusion reveals a failure to grasp the magnitude of the problem.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  > Surely this paradigm cannot scale up indefinitely. It doesn't have to. It just has to scale up long enough to start causing real societal problems, if it isn't already there. Also it's kind of annoying to see you dismiss any of this criticism as 'alarmist' in thread after thread when if you look back a year at best the state that we are in today was said to be at least several years away by the same people who are continuously harping on the fact that this isn't AGI yet. The point is: it doesn't have to be to do massive damage and from that perspective it might as well be. I don't particularly care if I get bitten by the cat or by the dog, I care about being bitten.
  - oliveshell 4y ago
    I didn’t dismiss anything. I didn’t say anything was alarmist. Please don’t put words in my mouth. You didn’t say anything about societal problems. You wondered if the growth will ever stop, and I tried my best in good faith to give the reasons why I believe that it will. If the question is “when will the models be powerful enough to cause societal problems”, then that is a completely different question and I think the answer to it is clearly “they already are”. (But not because they are superintelligent or anything close to AGI.)
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      > I didn’t dismiss anything. I didn’t say anything was alarmist. Please don’t put words in my mouth. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35276186 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35276186 "We’re still decades from AGI in my opinion, and the Chicken Little types ought to pace themselves, is all I’m saying. "
      - oliveshell 4y ago
        Oh— I see now you were making reference to a comment I made in reply to someone else. Yes, that was something that I said and I stand by it. I do not see any reason to be concerned about AI as an existential threat at the present moment. I have explained in my previous comment why I feel this is the case; if you feel that this view is recklessly dismissive and wish to change my mind, then I invite you to do the same. Edit: I’m sorry for any excessive crispiness or combativeness in my tone; I can see now from your post history that you are likely arguing in good faith. I have grown weary of arguing against concern trolls lately on this topic, so I may have misjudged your initial comment based on its brevity. Sorry about that.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jazzyjackson 4y ago
  > massive recent improvements in GPT’s performance are a result of giving the model enormous numbers of parameters and a wealth of training data. That’s it. extremely dismissive of the labor that went into converting AGI from "impossible" to "expensive"
- int_19h 4y ago
  Firstly, LLMs are an embarrassingly parallel problem, so yes, you can actually get quite far simply by throwing more hardware at it. The catch is that the gain is not linear - e.g. you need 4x more VRAM for 2x inputs / context window size. But if doing that unlocks more useful emergent properties, it may well be a worthwhile trade-off - and it doesn't have to spontaneously become an AGI for that to happen. So I think we'll be playing this game for quite a long time.
childintime 4y ago
Right, it will already be out of our view when it does.

ChatGTP 4y ago

It’s not going to stop, we’re on the rocket ship to eternal gains and prosperity now. Strap in, next stop is technological utopia !