3 ms·
The question isn't _neural_ networks, it's _physical_ networks (and power, and cooling, and racking, and deployment, and and and). Actually marshaling enough co
by adw 3y ago
The question isn't _neural_ networks, it's _physical_ networks (and power, and cooling, and racking, and deployment, and and and). Actually marshaling enough compute to do anything is a serious real-world-moving-atoms endeavor.
- lmm 3y agoOr you look up the AWS APIs and call them.
- loandbehold 3y agoWe are talking about superhuman AGI. It would be able to do everything human is able to do. If human SRE is able to figure it out, AGI would too. That may include buying compute from cloud platforms as well as building it's own datacenters.
- throwanem 3y agoIt's a self-sealing argument. Anything a human can do, it can do too, because it's superhuman. Anything a human can't do, it can do anyway, because it's superhuman. Any reason it can't is false prima facie, because it's superhuman. You can claim what you like, and who's to argue? It's superhuman! It's unfalsifiable, too.
- loandbehold 3y agoSREs being able to maintain these systems is existence proof that neural networks are able to maintain them — neural networks in the brains of human SREs. Or do you think humans evolved innate SRE skills? The idea that people like Geof Hinton are wrong because they don't understand SRE is pretty arrogant. SRE skills are relatively straightforward vs AI theory.
- throwanem 3y agoIt's not that I think they're wrong; it's that I am not yet convinced they aren't "not even wrong."
- loandbehold 3y agoYou just don't understand their arguments. Put some efforts into understanding these arguments first. You can start by reading Nick Bostrom's Superintelligence book. People like you are no different that climate change deniers pooh-poohing on scientists without understanding physics involved. Be humble. People raising AGI X-risk arguments are smarter than you and gave it a lot of thought. Put an honest efforts in understanding their arguments.
- throwanem 3y agoBostrom is convincing if you treat his postulates as axiomatic, the same way he does. I don't. Do you think rereading an unfalsifiable argument will make it less unfalsifiable? Or that a naked appeal to authority counts for anything at all, except in the realm of religious faith?