4 ms·
> This also assumes that intelligence continues to scale with compute which is not a given. Isn’t it? Evidence seems to suggest that the more compute you throw
by sillysaurusx 1y ago
> This also assumes that intelligence continues to scale with compute which is not a given.
Isn’t it? Evidence seems to suggest that the more compute you throw at a problem, the smarter the system behaves. Sure, it’s not a given, but it seems plausible.
- deadbabe 1y agoIn a brute force poorly architected way, perhaps. But human brains are small and require far less energy to be very generally intelligent. So clearly, there must be a better way to achieve this AGI shit. Preferably something that runs locally in the palm of your hand.
- kachapopopow 1y agoit's not mathematically proven therefore it is not a given.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> it's not mathematically proven therefore it is not a given Given doesn't mean proven, it means accepted as true. We can give variables fixed values, for example. Entire classes of proofs, moreover, prove something cannot be true because if you assume it is you get a paradox or nonsense.
- kachapopopow 1y agowe had this problem in mathematics that's why all ambiguity was eliminated and why adding two numbers together is like 30 pages of proofs.
- nutjob2 1y ago> a problem That word is carrying a heavy load. There's no evidence that scaling works indefinitely on this particular sort of problem. In fact there is no evidence that scaling solves computing problems generally. In more narrow fields more compute gets better results but that niche is not so large.
- B56b 1y agoNo, that's no longer the case: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/open-questions/what-if-ai-doesnt-get-much-better-than-this https://www.newyorker.com/culture/open-questions/what-if-ai-...
- IsTom 1y agoIt also depends on the amount of training data, that isn't really growing much after they scraped all the internet.