5 ms·

> ... in the case of physics one could imagine working through very high quality course materials together with Feynman ... with recent progress in generative A

> ... in the case of physics one could imagine working through very high quality course materials together with Feynman ... with recent progress in generative AI, this learning experience feels tractable. Actually, this seems to be absurdly beyond any of the recent progress in generative AI. This sounds like the kind of thing people say when their only deep knowledge is in the field of AI engineering.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Yenrabbit 2y ago
It's optimistic, but given the OP is one of the best-informed technical generative AI researchers, and has been passing on that knowledge to the rest of us for a decade +, I don't think we can just dismiss it as unfounded hype :)
- nybsjytm 2y ago
  My point is that he's a world expert on the engineering of AI systems. That shouldn't be mistaken for expertise, or even general knowledge, about anything else. It's a good principle to bear in mind for people from any profession, but top AI engineers in particular seem to have an unusually significant habit of not being able to recognize where their expertise ends and expertise from another field (such as, say, education) begins. They also seem very prone to unfounded hype - which isn't to say they're not also good researchers. Maybe Karpathy happens to be better on this than his peers, I wouldn't know.
devindotcom 2y ago
incidentally, feynman would laugh pretty hard at this
Balgair 2y ago
>> feels tractable I mean, the guy isn't saying that it's going to 100% happen. He's saying that the problem feels like it might be doable at all. As Andrej has a background in physics, the phrase of 'feels tractable' would mean that he thinks that a path might exist, possibly, but only a lot of work will reveal that.
- nybsjytm 2y ago
  > As Andrej has a background in physics This seems rather generous given that he was just a physics major. There's lots of physics majors who understand very little about physics and, crucially, nothing about physics education.
  - famouswaffles 2y ago
    "Just" a physics major. I'm sorry but you're being ridiculous. There's nothing just about that especially when the commenter only said he had a background in physics.
    - nybsjytm 2y ago
      It's legitimate to call it a background in physics, but given the particular level of background and the context of this particular issue, its relevance is indistinguishable from zero. Has he ever demonstrated any particular insight or understanding of physics or - more importantly - of physics education? As far as I've been able to find, the answer is no. Not that there's anything wrong with that. At worst it just makes him a typical physics major.
      - famouswaffles 2y ago
        One of the things Karpathy is most famous for, perhaps the thing depending on who you ask are his instructional materials on Deep Learning and Neural Networks, of which at least hundreds of thousands have benefitted. That's far more tangible than whatever "background" it is you're looking for. He's a good teacher. He stands out for that and that's not an easy thing to do. Of all the things background doesn't mean much in, being a good educator is at the top of the list. Most Educators including those who've been at it for years are mediocre at best. The people who educate at the highest level (College/University Professors) are not even remotely hired based on ability to educate so this really isn't a surprise. Genuinely and I mean no offense, your expectations just feel rather comical. People like Sal Khan and Luis von Ahn would be laughed out of the room looking for your "background". Sure, Sal is an educator now but he quit being a financial analyst to pursue Khan Academy full time. The real problem here is that you don't believe what Karpathy has in mind is tractable and not that there's some elusive background he needs to have. His background is as good as any to take this on.
cyost 2y ago
Would any hypothetical training data corpus even be sufficient to emulate Feynman? Could any AI have a sufficient grasp of the material being taught, have enough surety to avoid errors, mimic Feynman's writing+teaching style, and accomplish this feat in a reasonable budget and timeframe? The example is obvious marketing hyperbole, of course, but it's just not going to happen beyond a superficial level unless we somehow create some kind of time-travelling panopticon. It's marred by lack of data (Feynman died in 1988), bad data (hagiographies of Feynman, this instance included), flawed assumptions (would Feynman even be an appropriate teaching assistant for everyone?), etc. I wonder if AI fans keep doing this thing in hopes that the "wow factor" of having the greats being emulated by AI (Feynman, Bill Gates, Socrates, etc.) will paper over their fundamental insecurities about their investment in AI. Like, c'mon, this kind of thing is a bit silly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og2ehY5QXSc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og2ehY5QXSc
- nybsjytm 2y ago
  > Feynman, Bill Gates, Socrates, etc. One of these doesn't quite belong ;) But these AI researchers don't even understand these figures except as advertising reference points. The Socratic dialogue in the "sparks of AGI" paper https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12712 https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12712 has nothing whatsoever to do with Socrates or the way he argued. Fourteen authors and not a single one seemed to realize there's any possible difference between a Socratic dialogue and a standard hack conversation where one person is named "Socrates."
  - cyost 2y ago
    > Prompt: Can you compare the two outputs above as if you were a teacher? [to GPT-4, the "two outputs" being GPT-4's and ChatGPT's attempts at a Socratic dialogue] Okay, that's kinda funny lol. It's a bit worrying how much the AI industry seems to be focusing on the superficial appearance of success (grandiose marketing claims, AI art that looks fine on first glance, AI mimicking peoples' appearances and speech patterns, etc.). I'm just your random layperson in the comment section, but it really seems like the field needed to be stuck in academia for a decade or two more. It hadn't quite finished baking yet.
__loam 2y ago
[flagged]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Yenrabbit 2y ago

It's optimistic, but given the OP is one of the best-informed technical generative AI researchers, and has been passing on that knowledge to the rest of us for a decade +, I don't think we can just dismiss it as unfounded hype :)

nybsjytm 2y ago
My point is that he's a world expert on the engineering of AI systems. That shouldn't be mistaken for expertise, or even general knowledge, about anything else. It's a good principle to bear in mind for people from any profession, but top AI engineers in particular seem to have an unusually significant habit of not being able to recognize where their expertise ends and expertise from another field (such as, say, education) begins. They also seem very prone to unfounded hype - which isn't to say they're not also good researchers. Maybe Karpathy happens to be better on this than his peers, I wouldn't know.

devindotcom 2y ago

incidentally, feynman would laugh pretty hard at this

Balgair 2y ago

>> feels tractable I mean, the guy isn't saying that it's going to 100% happen. He's saying that the problem feels like it might be doable at all. As Andrej has a background in physics, the phrase of 'feels tractable' would mean that he thinks that a path might exist, possibly, but only a lot of work will reveal that.

nybsjytm 2y ago
> As Andrej has a background in physics This seems rather generous given that he was just a physics major. There's lots of physics majors who understand very little about physics and, crucially, nothing about physics education.
- famouswaffles 2y ago
  "Just" a physics major. I'm sorry but you're being ridiculous. There's nothing just about that especially when the commenter only said he had a background in physics.
  - nybsjytm 2y ago
    It's legitimate to call it a background in physics, but given the particular level of background and the context of this particular issue, its relevance is indistinguishable from zero. Has he ever demonstrated any particular insight or understanding of physics or - more importantly - of physics education? As far as I've been able to find, the answer is no. Not that there's anything wrong with that. At worst it just makes him a typical physics major.
    - famouswaffles 2y ago
      One of the things Karpathy is most famous for, perhaps the thing depending on who you ask are his instructional materials on Deep Learning and Neural Networks, of which at least hundreds of thousands have benefitted. That's far more tangible than whatever "background" it is you're looking for. He's a good teacher. He stands out for that and that's not an easy thing to do. Of all the things background doesn't mean much in, being a good educator is at the top of the list. Most Educators including those who've been at it for years are mediocre at best. The people who educate at the highest level (College/University Professors) are not even remotely hired based on ability to educate so this really isn't a surprise. Genuinely and I mean no offense, your expectations just feel rather comical. People like Sal Khan and Luis von Ahn would be laughed out of the room looking for your "background". Sure, Sal is an educator now but he quit being a financial analyst to pursue Khan Academy full time. The real problem here is that you don't believe what Karpathy has in mind is tractable and not that there's some elusive background he needs to have. His background is as good as any to take this on.

cyost 2y ago

Would any hypothetical training data corpus even be sufficient to emulate Feynman? Could any AI have a sufficient grasp of the material being taught, have enough surety to avoid errors, mimic Feynman's writing+teaching style, and accomplish this feat in a reasonable budget and timeframe? The example is obvious marketing hyperbole, of course, but it's just not going to happen beyond a superficial level unless we somehow create some kind of time-travelling panopticon. It's marred by lack of data (Feynman died in 1988), bad data (hagiographies of Feynman, this instance included), flawed assumptions (would Feynman even be an appropriate teaching assistant for everyone?), etc. I wonder if AI fans keep doing this thing in hopes that the "wow factor" of having the greats being emulated by AI (Feynman, Bill Gates, Socrates, etc.) will paper over their fundamental insecurities about their investment in AI. Like, c'mon, this kind of thing is a bit silly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og2ehY5QXSc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og2ehY5QXSc

nybsjytm 2y ago
> Feynman, Bill Gates, Socrates, etc. One of these doesn't quite belong ;) But these AI researchers don't even understand these figures except as advertising reference points. The Socratic dialogue in the "sparks of AGI" paper https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12712 https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12712 has nothing whatsoever to do with Socrates or the way he argued. Fourteen authors and not a single one seemed to realize there's any possible difference between a Socratic dialogue and a standard hack conversation where one person is named "Socrates."
- cyost 2y ago
  > Prompt: Can you compare the two outputs above as if you were a teacher? [to GPT-4, the "two outputs" being GPT-4's and ChatGPT's attempts at a Socratic dialogue] Okay, that's kinda funny lol. It's a bit worrying how much the AI industry seems to be focusing on the superficial appearance of success (grandiose marketing claims, AI art that looks fine on first glance, AI mimicking peoples' appearances and speech patterns, etc.). I'm just your random layperson in the comment section, but it really seems like the field needed to be stuck in academia for a decade or two more. It hadn't quite finished baking yet.

__loam 2y ago

[flagged]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]