5 ms·

That's pretty good. Based on the previous performance improvements of Alpha-- models, it'll be nearing 100% in the next couple of years.

nybsjytm 2y ago
Just "Alpha-- models" in general?? That's not a remotely reasonable way to reason about it. Even if it were, why should it stop DeepMind from clearly communicating accuracy?
- dekhn 2y ago
  The way I think about this (specifically, deepmind not publishing their code or sharing their exact experimental results): advanced science is a game played by the most sophisticated actors in the world. Demis is one of those actors, and he plays the games those actors play better than anybody else I've ever seen. Those actors don't care much about the details of any specific system's accuracy: they care to know that it's possible to do this, and some general numbers about how well it works, and some hints what approaches they should take. And Nature, like other top journals, is more than willing to publish articles like this because they know it stimulates the most competitive players to bring their best games. (I'm not defending this approach, just making an observation)
  - nybsjytm 2y ago
    I think it's important to qualify that the relevant "game" is not advanced science per se; the game is business whose product is science. The aim isn't to do novel science; it's to do something which can be advertised as novel science. That isn't to cast aspersions on the personal motivations of Hassabis or any other individual researcher working there (which itself isn't to remove their responsibilities to public understanding); it's to cast aspersions on the structure that they're part of. And it's not to say that they can't produce novel or important science as part of their work there. And it's also not to say that the same tension isn't often present in the science world - but I think it's present to an extreme degree at DeepMind. (Sometimes the distinction between novel science and advertisably novel science is very important, as seems to be the case in the "new materials" research dopylitty linked to in these comments: here https://www.404media.co/google-says-it-discovered-millions-of-new-materials-with-ai-human-researchers/ https://www.404media.co/google-says-it-discovered-millions-o...)
  - moomin 2y ago
    Anyone remember how he marketed his computer games?
    - nybsjytm 2y ago
      No, how?
      - moomin 2y ago
        Massively overpromising unachievable things. From wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic:_The_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic:_The_Revolution Initial previews of Republic in 2000 focused upon the purported level of detail behind the game's engine, the "Totality Engine". Described as "the most advanced graphics engine ever seen, (with) no upper bound of on the number of polygons and objects", it was claimed the game could "render scenes with an unlimited number of polygons in real time".[14] Tech demonstrations of Republic at this time showcased a high polygonal level of detail,[21] with the claim that players would be able to zoom smoothly from the buildings in Novistrana to assets such as flowers upon the balconies of buildings with no loss of detail.[22] The game was further purported to have artificial intelligence that would simulate "approximately one million individual citizens" at a high level of detail,[23][19] each with "their own unique and specific AI" comprising "their own daily routine, emotions, beliefs and loyalties" I feel like it's always worth bearing in mind when he talks about upcoming capability.
        nybsjytm 2y ago
        Thanks, I'd never heard about this before. I definitely think it helps in understanding his commentary. It's really a shame that DeepMind picked up his communication style.
- 7734128 2y ago
  I'm quite hyped for the upcoming BetaFold, or even ReleaseCandidateFold models. They just have to be great.
akira2501 2y ago
> it'll be nearing 100% in the next couple of years. What are you basing this on? There is no established "moores law" for computational models.
- OrigamiPastrami 2y ago
  It's the internet. There is no source more cited than "trust me bro"
- bluerooibos 2y ago
  Computational models have been shown to improve with computing power though, right? It's a tongue in cheek comment about how fast models have been improving over the last few years, but I forgot HN scrutinizes every comment like it's a scientific paper.
  - akira2501 2y ago
    The ROI exponentially decreases with language models. At this point, each percentage point of accuracy costs you tens of billions, and the projections show a solid wall approaching with the current implementation tricks. It's an off the cuff comment, at this point though, HN apparently needs to bully everyone who refuses to go along with the zeitgeist, as if being negative near a thing would destroy it. I guess the 'h' no longer stands for 'hacker.'
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
tsimionescu 2y ago
Which specific AlphaX model evolved like that? Most of the ones that were in the press had essentially a single showing, typically very good, but didn't really improve after that.

nybsjytm 2y ago

Just "Alpha-- models" in general?? That's not a remotely reasonable way to reason about it. Even if it were, why should it stop DeepMind from clearly communicating accuracy?

dekhn 2y ago
The way I think about this (specifically, deepmind not publishing their code or sharing their exact experimental results): advanced science is a game played by the most sophisticated actors in the world. Demis is one of those actors, and he plays the games those actors play better than anybody else I've ever seen. Those actors don't care much about the details of any specific system's accuracy: they care to know that it's possible to do this, and some general numbers about how well it works, and some hints what approaches they should take. And Nature, like other top journals, is more than willing to publish articles like this because they know it stimulates the most competitive players to bring their best games. (I'm not defending this approach, just making an observation)
- nybsjytm 2y ago
  I think it's important to qualify that the relevant "game" is not advanced science per se; the game is business whose product is science. The aim isn't to do novel science; it's to do something which can be advertised as novel science. That isn't to cast aspersions on the personal motivations of Hassabis or any other individual researcher working there (which itself isn't to remove their responsibilities to public understanding); it's to cast aspersions on the structure that they're part of. And it's not to say that they can't produce novel or important science as part of their work there. And it's also not to say that the same tension isn't often present in the science world - but I think it's present to an extreme degree at DeepMind. (Sometimes the distinction between novel science and advertisably novel science is very important, as seems to be the case in the "new materials" research dopylitty linked to in these comments: here https://www.404media.co/google-says-it-discovered-millions-of-new-materials-with-ai-human-researchers/ https://www.404media.co/google-says-it-discovered-millions-o...)
- moomin 2y ago
  Anyone remember how he marketed his computer games?
  - nybsjytm 2y ago
    No, how?
    - moomin 2y ago
      Massively overpromising unachievable things. From wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic:_The_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic:_The_Revolution Initial previews of Republic in 2000 focused upon the purported level of detail behind the game's engine, the "Totality Engine". Described as "the most advanced graphics engine ever seen, (with) no upper bound of on the number of polygons and objects", it was claimed the game could "render scenes with an unlimited number of polygons in real time".[14] Tech demonstrations of Republic at this time showcased a high polygonal level of detail,[21] with the claim that players would be able to zoom smoothly from the buildings in Novistrana to assets such as flowers upon the balconies of buildings with no loss of detail.[22] The game was further purported to have artificial intelligence that would simulate "approximately one million individual citizens" at a high level of detail,[23][19] each with "their own unique and specific AI" comprising "their own daily routine, emotions, beliefs and loyalties" I feel like it's always worth bearing in mind when he talks about upcoming capability.
      - nybsjytm 2y ago
        Thanks, I'd never heard about this before. I definitely think it helps in understanding his commentary. It's really a shame that DeepMind picked up his communication style.
7734128 2y ago
I'm quite hyped for the upcoming BetaFold, or even ReleaseCandidateFold models. They just have to be great.

akira2501 2y ago

> it'll be nearing 100% in the next couple of years. What are you basing this on? There is no established "moores law" for computational models.

OrigamiPastrami 2y ago
It's the internet. There is no source more cited than "trust me bro"
bluerooibos 2y ago
Computational models have been shown to improve with computing power though, right? It's a tongue in cheek comment about how fast models have been improving over the last few years, but I forgot HN scrutinizes every comment like it's a scientific paper.
- akira2501 2y ago
  The ROI exponentially decreases with language models. At this point, each percentage point of accuracy costs you tens of billions, and the projections show a solid wall approaching with the current implementation tricks. It's an off the cuff comment, at this point though, HN apparently needs to bully everyone who refuses to go along with the zeitgeist, as if being negative near a thing would destroy it. I guess the 'h' no longer stands for 'hacker.'

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

tsimionescu 2y ago

Which specific AlphaX model evolved like that? Most of the ones that were in the press had essentially a single showing, typically very good, but didn't really improve after that.