10 ms·

X to Doubt. This is the Anthropic CEO talking up his company's capital needs to the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund ( Norges Bank Investment Management ) and t

by htrp 2y ago

X to Doubt. This is the Anthropic CEO talking up his company's capital needs to the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund ( Norges Bank Investment Management ) and trying to justify some absurd 100bn valuation.

belter 2y ago
Yes. The release of GPT-5 will make or break the AI movement. If the capabilities are not another quantum leap, it will become clear the scaling laws are not all. These investments will be unsustainable on the basis of any economic metrics you use.
- MuffinFlavored 2y ago
  > If the capabilities are not another quantum leap While I don't disagree 100%, my question to you is: who/what says this is the case/why? GPT-3.5 was released/made popular "to the masses" not too long ago. Where do you feel the pressure for a quantum leap "quickly" is coming from?
  - wormlord 2y ago
    To steal from another comment in the thread: > That’s true for AI, but it is not the right way to think about AGI. For AGI, the bet is that someone will build an AI capable enough to automate AI development. Once we get there it will pay for itself. The question is what the cost-speed tradeoff to get there looks like. I don't think people are treating AI as a typical investment. They are valuing it as a potential replacement for like 95% of human workers. Once the plateau becomes obvious to even the biggest fanatics, people are going to realize all this money has been used to create really good chatbots that just make shit up 25% of the time. The whole sales pitch for the last 1-2 years has been that AGI is "just around the corner" and we can get there via the magic of exponential growth.
    - pulse7 2y ago
      "AGI is just around the corner" but we haven't be able to build "fully automatic car driving" for a decade... So first I would like to see car drivers replaced by non-general AI, then I will start believing in AGI...
      - entropicdrifter 2y ago
        Waymo's cars are fully automatic self-driving cars, just limited in where they can go. It's entirely possible we could see an AGI develop within a specific medium, e.g. text-only to start. But also, don't you think those two problems are convergent? If we make an algorithm smart enough to drive a car anywhere more safely than a human would, it seems likely to me that that will either be AGI or right on the cusp of it.
        namaria 2y ago
        The fact that we can't even define what AGI is, or what intelligence is, and yet we are throwing massive amounts of compute and data blindly at this problem... And why? Because chat bots impressed everyone in 2023? The whole thing smells.
        entropicdrifter 2y ago
        The problem isn't that we can't define intelligence, the problem (IMHO) is that people aren't comfortable of the implications of any given definition. I like to play a game whenever I meet a new group of programmers/lawyers/board gamers/pedants. I ask them to define a sandwich, then I point out all of the edge cases until we get to the point where I can either say their definition is bad because it e.g. doesn't include subs (short for submarine sandwiches), or I can say that poptarts are sandwiches. The problem is that reality is blurry and clear definitions are fundamentally incapable of capturing the nuance there.
      - CamperBob2 2y ago
        Automated driving is more a political problem than a technical one. We could make it happen today (and I'm not saying that would be a good thing or a bad one), but it would require leadership we simply don't have. See also standardization of EV battery form factors -- a problem that, had it been tackled by government several years ago, would have avoided the chicken-and-egg problem that is impeding adoption now.
    - digging 2y ago
      > The whole sales pitch for the last 1-2 years has been that AGI is "just around the corner" and we can get there via the magic of exponential growth. I am pretty sure that's less than half the sales pitch. Current LLMs are economically valuable, they are useful to all kinds of knowledge work, despite their flaws.

by htrp 2y ago

belter 2y ago

Yes. The release of GPT-5 will make or break the AI movement. If the capabilities are not another quantum leap, it will become clear the scaling laws are not all. These investments will be unsustainable on the basis of any economic metrics you use.

MuffinFlavored 2y ago
> If the capabilities are not another quantum leap While I don't disagree 100%, my question to you is: who/what says this is the case/why? GPT-3.5 was released/made popular "to the masses" not too long ago. Where do you feel the pressure for a quantum leap "quickly" is coming from?
- wormlord 2y ago
  To steal from another comment in the thread: > That’s true for AI, but it is not the right way to think about AGI. For AGI, the bet is that someone will build an AI capable enough to automate AI development. Once we get there it will pay for itself. The question is what the cost-speed tradeoff to get there looks like. I don't think people are treating AI as a typical investment. They are valuing it as a potential replacement for like 95% of human workers. Once the plateau becomes obvious to even the biggest fanatics, people are going to realize all this money has been used to create really good chatbots that just make shit up 25% of the time. The whole sales pitch for the last 1-2 years has been that AGI is "just around the corner" and we can get there via the magic of exponential growth.
  - pulse7 2y ago
    "AGI is just around the corner" but we haven't be able to build "fully automatic car driving" for a decade... So first I would like to see car drivers replaced by non-general AI, then I will start believing in AGI...
    - entropicdrifter 2y ago
      Waymo's cars are fully automatic self-driving cars, just limited in where they can go. It's entirely possible we could see an AGI develop within a specific medium, e.g. text-only to start. But also, don't you think those two problems are convergent? If we make an algorithm smart enough to drive a car anywhere more safely than a human would, it seems likely to me that that will either be AGI or right on the cusp of it.
      - namaria 2y ago
        The fact that we can't even define what AGI is, or what intelligence is, and yet we are throwing massive amounts of compute and data blindly at this problem... And why? Because chat bots impressed everyone in 2023? The whole thing smells.
        entropicdrifter 2y ago
        The problem isn't that we can't define intelligence, the problem (IMHO) is that people aren't comfortable of the implications of any given definition. I like to play a game whenever I meet a new group of programmers/lawyers/board gamers/pedants. I ask them to define a sandwich, then I point out all of the edge cases until we get to the point where I can either say their definition is bad because it e.g. doesn't include subs (short for submarine sandwiches), or I can say that poptarts are sandwiches. The problem is that reality is blurry and clear definitions are fundamentally incapable of capturing the nuance there.
    - CamperBob2 2y ago
      Automated driving is more a political problem than a technical one. We could make it happen today (and I'm not saying that would be a good thing or a bad one), but it would require leadership we simply don't have. See also standardization of EV battery form factors -- a problem that, had it been tackled by government several years ago, would have avoided the chicken-and-egg problem that is impeding adoption now.
  - digging 2y ago
    > The whole sales pitch for the last 1-2 years has been that AGI is "just around the corner" and we can get there via the magic of exponential growth. I am pretty sure that's less than half the sales pitch. Current LLMs are economically valuable, they are useful to all kinds of knowledge work, despite their flaws.