4 ms·
You obviously didn't read the article. The author argues that with current tech we'll eventually hit a bottle neck providing additional training data, which wi
by Jackevansevo 3y ago
You obviously didn't read the article.
The author argues that with current tech we'll eventually hit a bottle neck providing additional training data, which will limit any rapid self improvement.
It's equally as speculative to assume we'll magically manage to overcome this challenge.
- ravenstine 3y agoSo what exactly do you disagree about with the commenter? If it's equally speculative, then what's your point?
- roflyear 3y agoThe more extraordinary claim is we're close to AGI not that we're far from AGI
- dmbche 3y agoRemember 2012? Both the people expecting the end of the world and the ones that were saying nothing was going to happen were speculating. We just need to stop giving attention to them, as it's just empty wind.
- hammyhavoc 3y agoIs this speculating or just parroting within the echo chamber? E.g., people who believed in 5G mind control, microchips in the COVID vaccines etc. They themselves just repeated what they heard. Like with the crypto hype cycle, people repeated all kinds of unfounded claims, but they themselves didn't come up with the idea. That the idea existed was all the "evidence" they needed for these things to be apparently true.
- dmbche 3y agoI guess at that point it's operationally the same - wether it's someone parrotting it or someone that actually has the opinion, both are saying nothing of value, just like with covid microchips and 5g!
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jacquesm 3y agoEither you're sarcastic or I fail to see those two as even remotely balanced. The world wasn't going to end. Neither will it end tomorrow morning at 9 am.[+] [+] And if it does good luck collecting on that ;)
- dmbche 3y agoNo - that's the point. There was no reason to believe the world was going to end, so the conversation is nonsensical. If someone was to begin arguing with you that it was going to end tomorrow and started raining you with blog posts and papers, what's the sensible thing to do? Just ignore em
- Jackevansevo 3y agoMy only point was to dismiss the original commenter. It's not constructive to argue in a vacuum and completely ignore the argument points laid out by the author in the article.
- MVissers 3y agoWe have an example: The brain. We can learn really fast with limited data. There are no laws of physics that are preventing us to do the same with an artificial LLM, or the next platform.
- danaris 3y agoNone of the "AI" systems that have been making splashes in the news recently are very much like the human brain. There are AI research efforts that are seeking to directly map and mimic the structure of the brain; however, they are not at a place where they can remotely demonstrate practical results. To the best of my understanding, it would take several further orders of magnitude more processing power to simulate a full human brain at anything close to speed. It is not at all impossible that we will be able to do this someday. But, as TFA says, we are not close.
- myrmidon 3y ago> None of the "AI" systems that have been making splashes in the news recently are very much like the human brain. Why do you believe that this is relevant? Our brain is just the product of natural evolution; running on hardware that is already incredibly inferior in several critical aspects (processing speed, bandwidth and information storage density), and the only holdout--computational power/watt--exists because we have no good way to compare it. Why would it be necessary or even helpful to COPY that biological implementation to achieve superhuman cognitive capabilities?
- danaris 3y agoBecause...the person I was replying to was talking specifically about the human brain?
- jacquesm 3y ago> You obviously didn't read the article. Guidelines contemplation for you.