5 ms·

Does that mean you work with them? Can you tell us more about that?

sillysaurusx 3y ago
I can’t go into specifics for obvious reasons, but I can tell you they’re a smart, capable crew, with lots of resources, and time is on their side. If I had to place bets on which lab will invent agi, they’d be near the top, precisely because they’re exploring ideas that others don’t seem to be focusing on. It’s the early stages, so it’ll take a few years to get to results. But they’re laser-focused. There are a bunch of things I thought were cool. John has a worklog going back four years or so, with entries practically every day. He’s nothing if not thorough. Everyone tends to focus on John, but the other members are just as professional and dedicated. They’re a delight to work with. Also the investors are worth mentioning — Nat in particular has built a super cluster of H100s for startups to use, and has done a bunch of other work to support AI.
- HoDaMoFoDor 3y ago
  How do people apply? They don't seem to have much of a web presence.
  - sillysaurusx 3y ago
    I think he sources from people he knows, so your best bet is an intro.
    - HoDaMoFoDor 3y ago
      Thanks, I'm pretty interested, but don't have any direct connects.
  - intelVISA 3y ago
    I'd accept a massive pay cut to work with such legends :/
    - gallerdude 3y ago
      I don’t think spending is their primary constraint; they’re probably looking for talent, no matter the cost.
  - ativzzz 3y ago
    It seems more of a place that finds you if you are doing interesting work
- chubot 3y ago
  If I had to place bets on which lab will invent agi I'd bet against "invent AGI" being a coherent or agreed upon thing, and I'd also bet against the "wake-up" scenario of a system saying "I'm AGI" Which lab invented deep learning? Certainly U Toronto had the breakthrough that made a 30+ year old field exciting, but there was a lot of work in Montreal, NYU, Google, DeepMind, OpenAI, and many other places
  - pixl97 3y ago
    Hell,LLMs can and do output strings of "I'm AGI", so in some sense we're long past that. The problem is as humans we've never defined what it means for a system to be AGI.
    - jondwillis 3y ago
      My back of a napkin definition is that AGI, given the same information and tools as an IQ 100 human, is able to do all of the same tasks that you could ask a human to do, at the same quality level, as well as recall the experience some time later, like a human would likely be able to do.
      - pixl97 3y ago
        The particular issue here is that is subjective as any other subjective definition. 100 IQ is subjective and a moving target. 100 IQ doesn't even mean you can survive and navigate in the real world. Even worse is all humans cannot do all tasks other humans can do and we'd consider them intelligent. Furthermore this "must behave like a human" blindness represents both a danger, and a way to miss intelligence capabilities leaving them unused/under capitalized. Humans behave like humans because we have human bodies with particular sets of strengths and weaknesses. Other 'intelligent' actors with different embodiment will necessarily behave differently. Couple that with humans have become far more intelligent and stronger by using tools, that the ability to 'universally' interface with external tooling, at least in my subjective opinion is what will be the defining factor of higher intelligences.
      - hackernewds 3y ago
- Michelangelo11 3y ago
  Can you share if the approach is more GOFAI or more neural network-type stuff? Just curious, and I understand if you can't say much, of course.

I can’t go into specifics for obvious reasons, but I can tell you they’re a smart, capable crew, with lots of resources, and time is on their side. If I had to place bets on which lab will invent agi, they’d be near the top, precisely because they’re exploring ideas that others don’t seem to be focusing on. It’s the early stages, so it’ll take a few years to get to results. But they’re laser-focused. There are a bunch of things I thought were cool. John has a worklog going back four years or so, with entries practically every day. He’s nothing if not thorough. Everyone tends to focus on John, but the other members are just as professional and dedicated. They’re a delight to work with. Also the investors are worth mentioning — Nat in particular has built a super cluster of H100s for startups to use, and has done a bunch of other work to support AI.

HoDaMoFoDor 3y ago
How do people apply? They don't seem to have much of a web presence.
- sillysaurusx 3y ago
  I think he sources from people he knows, so your best bet is an intro.
  - HoDaMoFoDor 3y ago
    Thanks, I'm pretty interested, but don't have any direct connects.
- intelVISA 3y ago
  I'd accept a massive pay cut to work with such legends :/
  - gallerdude 3y ago
    I don’t think spending is their primary constraint; they’re probably looking for talent, no matter the cost.
- ativzzz 3y ago
  It seems more of a place that finds you if you are doing interesting work
chubot 3y ago
If I had to place bets on which lab will invent agi I'd bet against "invent AGI" being a coherent or agreed upon thing, and I'd also bet against the "wake-up" scenario of a system saying "I'm AGI" Which lab invented deep learning? Certainly U Toronto had the breakthrough that made a 30+ year old field exciting, but there was a lot of work in Montreal, NYU, Google, DeepMind, OpenAI, and many other places
- pixl97 3y ago
  Hell,LLMs can and do output strings of "I'm AGI", so in some sense we're long past that. The problem is as humans we've never defined what it means for a system to be AGI.
  - jondwillis 3y ago
    My back of a napkin definition is that AGI, given the same information and tools as an IQ 100 human, is able to do all of the same tasks that you could ask a human to do, at the same quality level, as well as recall the experience some time later, like a human would likely be able to do.
    - pixl97 3y ago
      The particular issue here is that is subjective as any other subjective definition. 100 IQ is subjective and a moving target. 100 IQ doesn't even mean you can survive and navigate in the real world. Even worse is all humans cannot do all tasks other humans can do and we'd consider them intelligent. Furthermore this "must behave like a human" blindness represents both a danger, and a way to miss intelligence capabilities leaving them unused/under capitalized. Humans behave like humans because we have human bodies with particular sets of strengths and weaknesses. Other 'intelligent' actors with different embodiment will necessarily behave differently. Couple that with humans have become far more intelligent and stronger by using tools, that the ability to 'universally' interface with external tooling, at least in my subjective opinion is what will be the defining factor of higher intelligences.
    - hackernewds 3y ago
Michelangelo11 3y ago
Can you share if the approach is more GOFAI or more neural network-type stuff? Just curious, and I understand if you can't say much, of course.