5 ms·
Good to have impartial articles but it should be noted that the top 3 most cited AI researchers have all the same opinion. That's Hinton, Bengio and Sutskever.
by arisAlexis 3y ago
Good to have impartial articles but it should be noted that the top 3 most cited AI researchers have all the same opinion.
That's Hinton, Bengio and Sutskever.
Their voices should have a heavier weight than Andressen and other irrelevant with AI VCs with vested interests.
- kesslern 3y agoWhat is that opinion?
- mathematicaster 3y agoVery approximately, (1) developing AGI is dangerous, (2) we might be very close to it (think several years rather than several decades). TBH It surprises me how controversial (1) is. The crux really is (2) ...
- creer 3y agoThere seems to be soooo much background feeling that the official large companies of AI are in control of things. Or should be. Or can be. Can they? When plenty of groups are more interesting in exploiting the advances? When plenty of hackers will first try to work around the constraints - before even using the system as-is? When it's difficult even to define what AGI might test like or look like? When it might depend on a small detail or helper?
- concordDance 3y agoSeveral years is a quite small position. Decades is still extremely concerning.
- nwiswell 3y agoI'm not sure how you are getting the citation data for Top 3, but LeCun must be close and he does not agree.
- downWidOutaFite 3y agoNot that it means anything for this debate but LeCun has half as many citations as Hinton Hinton 732,799 https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=JicYPdAAAAAJ https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=JicYPdAAAAAJ Bengio 730,391 https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=kukA0LcAAAAJ https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=kukA0LcAAAAJ He 508,365 https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=DhtAFkwAAAAJ https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=DhtAFkwAAAAJ Sutskever 454,430 https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=x04W_mMAAAAJ https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=x04W_mMAAAAJ Girshick 418,751 https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=W8VIEZgAAAAJ https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=W8VIEZgAAAAJ Zisserman 389,748 https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=UZ5wscMAAAAJ https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=UZ5wscMAAAAJ LeCun 332,027 https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=WLN3QrAAAAAJ https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=WLN3QrAAAAAJ
- nwiswell 3y agoShould we be normalizing by the number of years that they've been actively publishing? On that basis Sutskever and He are both above Hinton, for example.
- tokai 3y agoGoogle Scholars numbers are horrible and should never be relied on. It is extremely easy game its citation numbers, and its crawls too wide and find to many false positive citations.
- kridsdale3 3y agoJudging someone by how many citations they have is like saying The Pope is right about everything because millions of cardinals and priests will refer to his proclamations in their masses.
- aprilthird2021 3y ago[flagged]
- jessriedel 3y agoI agree that they are all closer to caution than e/acc, but worth noting they still do vary significantly on that axis.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- matusp 3y agoThat's an argument from authority fallacy. It doesn't matter how many citations you have, you either have the arguments for your position or you do not have them. In this particular context, ML as a field looked completely different even few years ago and the most cited people were able to come up with new architectures, training regimes, loss functions, etc. But those things does not inform you about societal dangers of the technology. Car mechanics can't solve your car-centric urbanism or traffic jams.
- kromem 3y agoIn many ways, we're effectively discussing the accuracy by which the engineers of the Gutenburg printing press are able to predict the future of literature.
- B1FF_PSUVM 3y agoIMHO, the impact of the printing press was much more in advertising than literature. Although that is by no means the official position. (Same can be argued for radio/tv/internet - "content" is what people talk about, but advertising is what moves money)
- kridsdale3 3y agoThe printing press's impact was in ending the Catholic Church's monopoly over information, and thereby "the truth". It took 400 years for that process to take place. The Gutenberg Era lasted all the way from its invention to (I'd say) the proliferation of radio stations.
- jackcosgrove 3y agoThe printing press did end the middle ages. It was an eschatological invention, using the weaker definition of the term.
- kromem 3y agoRight, but the question is if the engineers who intimately understood the function of the press itself were the experts that should have been looked to in predicting the sociopolitical impacts of the machine and the ways in which it would transform the media with which it was engaged. I'm not always that impressed by the discussion of AI or LLMs by engineers who undisputably have great things to say about the operation when they step outside their lane in predicting broader impacts or how the recursive content refinement is going to manifest over the next decade.
- proc0 3y agoThe potential miscalculation is thinking deep neural nets will scale to AGI. There are also a lot of misnomers in the area, even the term "AI", is claiming systems are intelligent, but that word implies intelligibility or human level understanding, which it is nowhere near as evidence by the existence of prompt engineering (which would not be needed otherwise). AI is ripe with overloaded terminology that prematurely anthropomorphizes what are basically smart tools, which are smart thanks to the brute-forcing power of modern GPUs. It is good to get ahead of the curve, but there is also a lot of hype and overloaded terminology that is fueling the fear.
- atleastoptimal 3y agoWhy couldn't deep neural nets scale to AGI. What is fundamentally impossible for neural nets + tooling to accomplish the suite of tasks we consider AGI? Also prompt engineering works for human too. It's called rhetoric, writing, persuasion, etc. Just because the intelligence of LLM's is different than humans doesn't mean it isn't a form of intelligence.
- KingMob 3y ago> Why couldn't deep neural nets scale to AGI Speaking as a former cognitive neuroscientist, our current NN models are large, but simpler in design relative to biological brains. I personally suspect that matters, and that AI researchers will need more heterogeneous designs to make that qualitative leap.
- ryanklee 3y agoSeems like that's happening with mixture of experts already. Not sure you are presenting an inherent LLM barrier.
- Vecr 3y agoHinton's done work on neural nets that are more similar to human brains and no far it's been a waste of compute. Multiplying matrices is more efficient than a physics simulation that stalls out all the pipelines.
- concordDance 3y ago> Good to have impartial articles Did you accidentally click on a different article? It literally uses the word "cult" five times and does not demonstrate any knowledge whatsoever of the main arguments around AGI danger and AGI alignment.