4 ms·
I'm not sure if you want models perpetually updating weights. You might run into undesirable scenarios.
by 4b11b4 8mo ago
I'm not sure if you want models perpetually updating weights. You might run into undesirable scenarios.
- cs702 8mo agoOur brains, which are organic neural networks, are constantly updating themselves. We call this phenomenon "neuroplasticity." If we want AI models that are always learning, we'll need the equivalent of neuroplasticity for artificial neural networks. Not saying it will be easy or straightforward. There's still a lot we don't know!
- nemomarx 8mo agoHow would you keep controls - safety restrictions - Ip restrictions etc with that, though? the companies selling models right now probably want to keep those fairly tight.
- api 8mo agoThis is why I’m not sure most users actually want AGI. They want special purpose experts that are good at certain things with strictly controlled parameters.
- 4b11b4 8mo agoI agree, the fundamental problem is we wouldn't be able to understand it ("AGI"). Therefore it's useless. Either useless or you let it go unleashed and it's useful. Either way you still don't understand it/can't predict it/it's dangerous/untrustworthy. But a constrained useful thing is great, but it fundamentally has to be constrained otherwise it doesn't make sense
- api 8mo agoThe way I see it, we build technology to be what we are not and do what we can’t do or things we can do but better or faster. An unpredictable fallible machine is useless to us because we have 7+ billion carbon based ones already.
- 4b11b4 8mo agoI wasn't explicit about this in my initial comment, but I don't think you can equate more forward passes to neuroplasticity. Because, for one, simply, we (humans) also /prune/. And... Similar to RL which just overwrites the policy, pushing new weights is in a similar camp. You don't have the previous state anymore. But we as humans with our neuroplasticity do know the previous states even after we've "updated our weights".
- com2kid 8mo agoIf done right, one step closer to actual AGI. That is the end goal after all, but all the potential VCs seem to forget that almost every conceivable outcome of real AGI involves the current economic system falling to pieces. Which is sorta weird. It is like if VCs in Old Regime france started funding the revolution.
- CorrectHorseBat 8mo agoYes the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders. And for your comparison, they did fund the American revolution which on its turn was one of the sparks for the French revolution (or was that exactly the point you were making?)
- com2kid 8mo agoThe funding of the American revolution is a fun topic but most people don't know about it so I don't bother dropping references to it. :D
- BobbyTables2 8mo agoI wonder which side tried to forget that first (;->
- Nevermark 8mo agoIf it makes the models smarter, someone will do it. From any individual, up to entire countries, not participating doesn't do anything except ensure you don't have a card to play when it happens. There is a very strong element of the principles of nature and life (as in survival, not nightclubs or hobbies) happening here that can't be shamed away. The resource feedback for AI progress effort is immense (and it doesn't matter how much is earned today vs. forward looking investment). Very few things ever have that level of relentless force behind them. And even beyond the business need, keeping up is rapidly becoming a security issue for everyone.
- 8mo ago
- bdj108 8mo agoit is interesting
- 4b11b4 8mo agoPlease elaborate
- 0xdeadbeefbabe 8mo agoHow about we just put them to bed once in a while?
- fph 8mo agoTay the chatbot says hi from 2017.