10 ms·
It's not clear that compute will scale as it did for the next 33 years. But it doesn't really need to. I read the article and I was thinking "my God, I remembe
by dsign 3y ago
It's not clear that compute will scale as it did for the next 33 years. But it doesn't really need to.
I read the article and I was thinking "my God, I remember I used MSE that weekend in my pet ML project and it really didn't work out that well; wrong loss function." Our current crop of LLMs, or the one next year, will be perfectly able to tell me how I can improve my code and graphs, which means that I can deploy some expert-level techniques that otherwise would be "locked" to me by 50000 hours of "mastery acquisition".
A part of me is telling me that we humans are doomed, and that in 33 years we would have created a world in which we humans are irrelevant. But another part tells me that if we avoid that fate and all the other dooms, the future might just be quite bright.
- somewhereoutth 3y ago> or the one next year We have heard, and will continue to hear, this sort of thing rather a lot. The last 5 yards are the hardest, but without them the previous 5 miles are of limited utility.
- NumberWangMan 3y agoI think there’s going to be a point where we need to slow a AI way, way down in order to avoid bad outcomes. I’m with Zvi Mowshowitz here: we should encourage progress and risk taking in every area except those where there are extinction risks. Applying today’s LLMs to all sorts of problems won’t end us. But I think we may only be a few years away from AGI that is conscious and can plan, and we don’t know the upper limit of how smart we’ll be able to make them. And I think that we have a responsibility to any intelligent being we bring into the world. Some lament that there’s no test to become a parent-what about creating a million copies of a new virtual brain from scratch? And basically so they can be born into lifelong servitude.