4 ms·

I welcome any substantive commentary and disagreement, as always. I’m happy to stray outside the herd. HN needs more clearly articulated disagreement regarding

by xpe 1y ago

I welcome any substantive commentary and disagreement, as always. I’m happy to stray outside the herd. HN needs more clearly articulated disagreement regarding AI regulation. I made my comment in response to what seemed like a simplistic, ideology-driven claim. Few wise hackers would make an analogous claim about a system they actually worked on. Thinking carefully about tech but phoning it in for other topics is a double standard. Bare downvotes don't indicate (much less explain) one's rationale. I can’t tell if I (1) struck a nerve (an emotional response); (2) conjured a contentious philosophy (i.e. we have a difference in values or preferences or priorities), (3) made a logical error, (4) broke some norm or expectation, or (5) something else. Such a conflation of downvotes pushes me away from HN for meaningful discussion. I’ve lived/worked on both coasts, Austin, and more, and worked at many places (startups, academic projects, research labs, gov't, not-for-profits, big tech) and I don’t consider myself defined by any one place or culture. But for the context of AI regulation, I have more fundamental priorities than anything close to "technical innovation at all costs". P.S. (1) If a downvote here is merely an expression of “I’m a techno-libertarian” or "how dare you read someone's HN profile page and state the obvious?" or any such shallow disagreement, then IMO that’s counterproductive. If you want to express your viewpoint, make it persuasive rather than vaguely dismissive with an anonymous, unexplained downvote. (2) Some people do the thing where they guess at why someone else downvoted. That’s often speculation.

srj 1y ago
FWIW I didn't downvote you. I don't work on AI personally, and while I have no way of proving it to you I certainly am not trying to shill for my employer. My skepticism of AI safety is just because of skepticism of AI generally. These are amazing things, but I don't believe the technology is even a road to AGI. There's a reason it can give a chess move when prompted and explain all the rules and notation, but can't actually play chess: it's not in the training data. I simply think the hype and anxiety is unnecessary, is my issue. Now this is most definitely just my opinion and has nothing to do with that company I work for who I'd bet would disagree with me on all of this anyway. If I did believe this was a road to AGI I actually would be in favor of AI safety regulation.
- xpe 1y ago
  > There's a reason it can give a chess move when prompted and explain all the rules and notation, but can't actually play chess: it's not in the training data. I don't understand how you can claim an LLM can't play chess. Just as one example, see: https://dynomight.net/chess/ https://dynomight.net/chess/
- xpe 1y ago
  > My skepticism of AI safety is just because of skepticism of AI generally. These are amazing things, but I don't believe the technology is even a road to AGI. Thanks for your response. I'm curious how to state your claim in a way that you would feel is accurate. Would you say "LLMs are not a road to AGI"? I put ~zero weight on what an arbitrary person believes until they clarify their ideas, show me their model, and give me a prediction. So: - Clarify: What exactly do you mean by "a road to"? Does this mean you are saying any future technology that uses LLMs (for training? for inference? something else) won't assist the development of AGI? - Model: On what model(s) of how the world works do you make your claims? - Prediction: If you are right, when will we know and what will be observe?
  - srj 1y ago
    Yes I'm talking about LLMs in particular. I'm in the stochastic parrot camp. Though I could be convinced humans are no more than stochastic parrots, in which case it does have a path for development of AGI. If I'm right the breakthroughs will plateau even while applications of the technology continue to advance for the next several years.
    - xpe 1y ago
      > I'm in the stochastic parrot camp. If you wouldn't mind doing me a favor?... For a few minutes, can we avoid this phrase? I don't know what people really mean by it.* Can you in plain English translate your view into sentence of theses form: 1. "Based on my understanding of LLMs, X1 and X2 are impossible." 2. "This leads to predictions such as P1 and P2." 3. "If I observed X3 or X4, it would challenge my current beliefs of LLMs." * I've read the original stochastic parrots paper. In my view, the paper does not match how many people talk about it. Quite the opposite. It is likely many people name drop it but haven't read it carefully. I may have some misinterpretations, sure, but at least I'm actively seeking to question them.

by xpe 1y ago

srj 1y ago

FWIW I didn't downvote you. I don't work on AI personally, and while I have no way of proving it to you I certainly am not trying to shill for my employer. My skepticism of AI safety is just because of skepticism of AI generally. These are amazing things, but I don't believe the technology is even a road to AGI. There's a reason it can give a chess move when prompted and explain all the rules and notation, but can't actually play chess: it's not in the training data. I simply think the hype and anxiety is unnecessary, is my issue. Now this is most definitely just my opinion and has nothing to do with that company I work for who I'd bet would disagree with me on all of this anyway. If I did believe this was a road to AGI I actually would be in favor of AI safety regulation.

xpe 1y ago
> There's a reason it can give a chess move when prompted and explain all the rules and notation, but can't actually play chess: it's not in the training data. I don't understand how you can claim an LLM can't play chess. Just as one example, see: https://dynomight.net/chess/ https://dynomight.net/chess/
xpe 1y ago
> My skepticism of AI safety is just because of skepticism of AI generally. These are amazing things, but I don't believe the technology is even a road to AGI. Thanks for your response. I'm curious how to state your claim in a way that you would feel is accurate. Would you say "LLMs are not a road to AGI"? I put ~zero weight on what an arbitrary person believes until they clarify their ideas, show me their model, and give me a prediction. So: - Clarify: What exactly do you mean by "a road to"? Does this mean you are saying any future technology that uses LLMs (for training? for inference? something else) won't assist the development of AGI? - Model: On what model(s) of how the world works do you make your claims? - Prediction: If you are right, when will we know and what will be observe?
- srj 1y ago
  Yes I'm talking about LLMs in particular. I'm in the stochastic parrot camp. Though I could be convinced humans are no more than stochastic parrots, in which case it does have a path for development of AGI. If I'm right the breakthroughs will plateau even while applications of the technology continue to advance for the next several years.
  - xpe 1y ago
    > I'm in the stochastic parrot camp. If you wouldn't mind doing me a favor?... For a few minutes, can we avoid this phrase? I don't know what people really mean by it.* Can you in plain English translate your view into sentence of theses form: 1. "Based on my understanding of LLMs, X1 and X2 are impossible." 2. "This leads to predictions such as P1 and P2." 3. "If I observed X3 or X4, it would challenge my current beliefs of LLMs." * I've read the original stochastic parrots paper. In my view, the paper does not match how many people talk about it. Quite the opposite. It is likely many people name drop it but haven't read it carefully. I may have some misinterpretations, sure, but at least I'm actively seeking to question them.