5 ms·

> but I am yet to see any reasoned argument for why it is far more difficult and will take far longer I am yet to see any reasoned argument for why it is easy

by phito 2y ago

> but I am yet to see any reasoned argument for why it is far more difficult and will take far longer I am yet to see any reasoned argument for why it is easy to build real AI and that it will come fast. As you said, AI has been there for decades and stagnated for pretty much the whole time. We've just had a big leap, but nothing says (except BS hype) that we're not in for a long plateau again.

bamboozled 2y ago
Well he gave you a list of credentials of why you should believe him. Isn’t that enough ?
- phito 2y ago
  No. Stating credentials proves nothing at all. Even less so on the internet. edit: oh sorry I didn't get that it was sarcasm
- dartos 2y ago
  > I've trained as a neuroscientist and written a book about consciousness This has to do with ML and numerical computing, how?
  - bamboozled 2y ago
    Well I was being sarcastic. I really dislike it when people have to first convince you that you should trust them. Either make a good argument or don’t.
    - lemarchr 2y ago
      Argument from authority is a pernicious fallacy, and typically effective too. You were right to call it out. I must admit I overlooked the sarcasm, however.
      - lelanthran 2y ago
        > I must admit I overlooked the sarcasm, however. Don't feel too bad; until I read the next response I was in two minds about whether sarcasm was intended or not. It's bloody hard to tell, sometimes :-/
        carlmr 2y ago
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
        librasteve 2y ago
        it can be for some
    - carlmr 2y ago
      If people say "believe me" at the end of every second sentence you should doubt them. Not thinking of anyone in particular.
    - dartos 2y ago
      Oh, I was bamboozled.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      > I really dislike it when people have to first convince you that you should trust them. > Either make a good argument or don’t. Human beings can't evaulate the truth of things based only on the argument. Persuasive liars, cons, and incompetents are a very known phenomenon. Most of human history we misunderstood nature and many other things because we relied on 'good arguments'. Not that we need it, but research shows that human intuition about the truth of something isn't good without expertise. When I need medical advice, I get it from someone who has convinced me that they have expertise; I don't look for 'good arguments' that persuade me, because I don't know what I'm talking about. I have expertise in other things. In those fields, I could easily persuade people without it of just about anything. (I don't; I'm not a sociopath.) I imagine anyone with professional expertise who reads this can do the same.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- meroes 2y ago
  Let’s poll RLHF workers since they actually see the tech the most.
tasuki 2y ago
> I am yet to see any reasoned argument for why it is easy to build real AI and that it will come fast. We have "real ai" already. As for future progress, have you tried just simple interpolation of the progress so far? Human level intelligence is very near. (Though of course artificial intelligence will never exactly match human intelligence: it will be ahead/behind in certain aspects...)
- pdimitar 2y ago
  - We don't have a "real AI" at all. Where's Skynet, where's HAL-9000? Where are the cute robotic butlers from the "I, Robot" movie? - Simple interpolation of the progress is exactly the problem here. Look at the historical graphs of AI funding and tell me with a straight face that we absolutely must use simple interpolation. - Nope, human-level intelligence is not even close. It remains as nebulous and out of reach as ever. ChatGPT's imitation of intelligent speech falls apart very quickly when you chat with it for more than a few questions.
  - K0balt 2y ago
    To be fair, I’ve talked to a lot of people who cannot consistently perform at the mistral-12b level. I think we expect AGI to be much smarter than the average joe, and free of occasional stupidity. What we’ve got is an 85IQ generalist with unreliable savant capabilities, that can also talk to a million people at the same time without getting distracted. I don’t see how that isn’t absolutely a fundamental shift in capability. It’s just that we expect it to be spectacularly useful. Not like homeless joe, who lives down by the river. Unfortunately, nobody wants a 40 acre call center of homeless joes, but it’s hard to argue that HJ isn’t an intelligent entity. Obviously LLMs don’t yet have a control and supervision loop that gives them goal directed behaviour, but they also don’t have a drinking problem and debilitating PTSD with a little TBI thrown in from the last war. It’s not that we aren’t on the cusp of general intelligence, it’s that we have a distorted idea of how useful that should be.
    - pdimitar 2y ago
      > What we’ve got is an 85IQ generalist with unreliable savant capabilities, that can also talk to a million people at the same time without getting distracted. I don’t see how that isn’t absolutely a fundamental shift in capability. Very shallow assessment, first of all it's not a generalist at all, it has zero concept of what it's talking about, secondly it gets confused easily unless you order it to keep context in memory, and thirdly it can't perform if it does not regularly swallow petabytes of human text. I get your optimism but it's uninformed. > To be fair, I’ve talked to a lot of people who cannot consistently perform at the mistral-12b level. I can find you an old-school bot that performs better than uneducated members of marginalized and super poor communities, what is your example even supposed to prove? > it’s hard to argue that HJ isn’t an intelligent entity. What's HJ? If it's not a human then it's extremely easy to argue that it's not an intelligent entity. We don't have intelligent machine entities, we have stochastic parrots and it's weird to pretend otherwise when the algorithms are well-known and it's very visible there's no self-optimization in there, there's no actual learning, there's only adjusting weights (and this is not what our actual neurons do btw), there's no motivation or self-drive to continue learning, there's barely anything that has been "taught" to combine segments of human speech and somehow that's a huge achievement. Sure. > It’s not that we aren’t on the cusp of general intelligence, it’s that we have a distorted idea of how useful that should be. Nah, we are on no cusp of general AGI at all. We're not even at 1%. Don't know about you but I have a very clear idea what would AGI look like and LLMs are nowhere near. Not even in the same ballpark. It helps that I am not in the area and I don't feel the need to pat myself on the back that I have managed to achieve the next AI plateau which the area will not soon recover from. Bookmark this comment and tell me I am wrong in 10 years, I dare you.
tim333 2y ago
>nothing says ... that we're not in for a long plateau again The thing that's different this time is the hardware capacity in TFLOPs and the like passing human brain equivalence. There's a massive difference between much worse than human AI - a bit meh, and better than human AI - changes everything. >any reasoned argument for why it is easy to build real AI and that it will come fast It probably won't be easy but the huge value of better than human AI will ensure loads of the best and brightest working on it.

by phito 2y ago

bamboozled 2y ago

Well he gave you a list of credentials of why you should believe him. Isn’t that enough ?

phito 2y ago
No. Stating credentials proves nothing at all. Even less so on the internet. edit: oh sorry I didn't get that it was sarcasm
dartos 2y ago
> I've trained as a neuroscientist and written a book about consciousness This has to do with ML and numerical computing, how?
- bamboozled 2y ago
  Well I was being sarcastic. I really dislike it when people have to first convince you that you should trust them. Either make a good argument or don’t.
  - lemarchr 2y ago
    Argument from authority is a pernicious fallacy, and typically effective too. You were right to call it out. I must admit I overlooked the sarcasm, however.
    - lelanthran 2y ago
      > I must admit I overlooked the sarcasm, however. Don't feel too bad; until I read the next response I was in two minds about whether sarcasm was intended or not. It's bloody hard to tell, sometimes :-/
      - carlmr 2y ago
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
      - librasteve 2y ago
        it can be for some
  - carlmr 2y ago
    If people say "believe me" at the end of every second sentence you should doubt them. Not thinking of anyone in particular.
  - dartos 2y ago
    Oh, I was bamboozled.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    > I really dislike it when people have to first convince you that you should trust them. > Either make a good argument or don’t. Human beings can't evaulate the truth of things based only on the argument. Persuasive liars, cons, and incompetents are a very known phenomenon. Most of human history we misunderstood nature and many other things because we relied on 'good arguments'. Not that we need it, but research shows that human intuition about the truth of something isn't good without expertise. When I need medical advice, I get it from someone who has convinced me that they have expertise; I don't look for 'good arguments' that persuade me, because I don't know what I'm talking about. I have expertise in other things. In those fields, I could easily persuade people without it of just about anything. (I don't; I'm not a sociopath.) I imagine anyone with professional expertise who reads this can do the same.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
meroes 2y ago
Let’s poll RLHF workers since they actually see the tech the most.

tasuki 2y ago

> I am yet to see any reasoned argument for why it is easy to build real AI and that it will come fast. We have "real ai" already. As for future progress, have you tried just simple interpolation of the progress so far? Human level intelligence is very near. (Though of course artificial intelligence will never exactly match human intelligence: it will be ahead/behind in certain aspects...)

pdimitar 2y ago
- We don't have a "real AI" at all. Where's Skynet, where's HAL-9000? Where are the cute robotic butlers from the "I, Robot" movie? - Simple interpolation of the progress is exactly the problem here. Look at the historical graphs of AI funding and tell me with a straight face that we absolutely must use simple interpolation. - Nope, human-level intelligence is not even close. It remains as nebulous and out of reach as ever. ChatGPT's imitation of intelligent speech falls apart very quickly when you chat with it for more than a few questions.
- K0balt 2y ago
  To be fair, I’ve talked to a lot of people who cannot consistently perform at the mistral-12b level. I think we expect AGI to be much smarter than the average joe, and free of occasional stupidity. What we’ve got is an 85IQ generalist with unreliable savant capabilities, that can also talk to a million people at the same time without getting distracted. I don’t see how that isn’t absolutely a fundamental shift in capability. It’s just that we expect it to be spectacularly useful. Not like homeless joe, who lives down by the river. Unfortunately, nobody wants a 40 acre call center of homeless joes, but it’s hard to argue that HJ isn’t an intelligent entity. Obviously LLMs don’t yet have a control and supervision loop that gives them goal directed behaviour, but they also don’t have a drinking problem and debilitating PTSD with a little TBI thrown in from the last war. It’s not that we aren’t on the cusp of general intelligence, it’s that we have a distorted idea of how useful that should be.
  - pdimitar 2y ago
    > What we’ve got is an 85IQ generalist with unreliable savant capabilities, that can also talk to a million people at the same time without getting distracted. I don’t see how that isn’t absolutely a fundamental shift in capability. Very shallow assessment, first of all it's not a generalist at all, it has zero concept of what it's talking about, secondly it gets confused easily unless you order it to keep context in memory, and thirdly it can't perform if it does not regularly swallow petabytes of human text. I get your optimism but it's uninformed. > To be fair, I’ve talked to a lot of people who cannot consistently perform at the mistral-12b level. I can find you an old-school bot that performs better than uneducated members of marginalized and super poor communities, what is your example even supposed to prove? > it’s hard to argue that HJ isn’t an intelligent entity. What's HJ? If it's not a human then it's extremely easy to argue that it's not an intelligent entity. We don't have intelligent machine entities, we have stochastic parrots and it's weird to pretend otherwise when the algorithms are well-known and it's very visible there's no self-optimization in there, there's no actual learning, there's only adjusting weights (and this is not what our actual neurons do btw), there's no motivation or self-drive to continue learning, there's barely anything that has been "taught" to combine segments of human speech and somehow that's a huge achievement. Sure. > It’s not that we aren’t on the cusp of general intelligence, it’s that we have a distorted idea of how useful that should be. Nah, we are on no cusp of general AGI at all. We're not even at 1%. Don't know about you but I have a very clear idea what would AGI look like and LLMs are nowhere near. Not even in the same ballpark. It helps that I am not in the area and I don't feel the need to pat myself on the back that I have managed to achieve the next AI plateau which the area will not soon recover from. Bookmark this comment and tell me I am wrong in 10 years, I dare you.

tim333 2y ago

>nothing says ... that we're not in for a long plateau again The thing that's different this time is the hardware capacity in TFLOPs and the like passing human brain equivalence. There's a massive difference between much worse than human AI - a bit meh, and better than human AI - changes everything. >any reasoned argument for why it is easy to build real AI and that it will come fast It probably won't be easy but the huge value of better than human AI will ensure loads of the best and brightest working on it.