5 ms·
It isn’t about training anymore. It is about harnesses. Just look at new math proofs that will come out, as one example. Exploration vs Exploitation is a thing
by EGreg 8mo ago
It isn’t about training anymore. It is about harnesses.
Just look at new math proofs that will come out, as one example. Exploration vs Exploitation is a thing in AI but you seem to think that human creativity can’t be surpassed by harnesses and prompts like “generate 100 types of possible…”
You’re wrong. What you call creativity is often a manual application of a simple self-prompt that people do.
One can have a loop where AI generates new ideas, rejects some and ranks the rest, then prioritizes. Then spawns workloads and sandboxes to try out and test the most highly ranked ideas. Finally it accretes knowledge into a relational database.
Germans also underestimated USA in WW2, saying their soldiers were superior, and USA just had technology — but USA out produced tanks and machinery and won the war through sheer automation, even if its soldiers were just regular joes and not elite troops.
Back then it was mechanized divisions. Now it is mechanized intelligence.
While Stalin said: Quantity has a quality all its own.
- pluc 8mo agoThere is no "new ideas" with AI. Claiming the opposite is a fundamental misunderstanding of the technology.
- epgui 8mo agoWhile that’s kind of true in some sense, I think there’s an argument to be made for the contrary: that the mechanism for generating new ideas in humans is not quite as special as we would like to think. In other words, creativity in humans is arguably just as derivative as in machines.
- somenameforme 8mo agoI think this can be falsified by just considering the history of humanity. It wasn't that long ago that human language literally did not even exist. And our collective knowledge wasn't all that much more than 'poke him with the pointy end'. Somehow we went from that to putting a man on the Moon, unlocking the secrets of the atom, and more. And if you consider how awful we are at retaining/sharing information and just general inefficiencies due to the fact that we're humans and not just logical information processing machines, we did all of this in little more than the blink of an eye. This is something that seems to certainly be rather special.
- skeledrew 8mo agoAll that humanity has achieved happened due to the simple loop of identifying a desire/need and finding a way to satisfy it. Also known as reinforcement learning. The only thing that really differentiates humans from machines is... history. We've been learning and passing on our knowledge to successive generations over millennia. Nothing really special there; give the machines a few years to learn and see what happens.
- freejazz 8mo agoWhat needs do machines have? What desires do they have?
- fdgg 8mo agoWhat a ridiculous take lmao. What are your contributions again?
- skeledrew 8mo agoAnd what exactly is ridiculous about it?
- somenameforme 8mo agoReinforcement learning requires a well defined goal and a well defined way to quantitatively measure progress along that goal. In reality these don't exist without a hand of God guiding you. In the case of machine learning that hand of God is our own. Even given infinite processing power, you could not construct a reinforcement learning system that would mimic humanity's progress - it simply is a nonstarter due to the nature of reinforcement learning itself.
- replygirl 8mo agoi don't think all sides of this discussion agree on what a "new idea" is. i am a very creative person but i've never had a truly original thought and i don't know how having one would be possible
- cyberpunk 8mo agoIt depends on what layer you look at I think, shoulders of giants and all that..
- PetoU 8mo agothat's only partially true. AI can innovate in synthetic-realm of novel ideas, while real-world novelty will remain untouched. There are different types of novelties
- skeledrew 8mo agoWhat is a "real-world novelty" and what prevents AI from touching it?
- pluc 8mo agoIf AI could innovate it wouldn't be a public product. It would be a cash cow. Why give your customers the ability to come up with new and amazing ideas when you can just keep it for yourself and launch a thousand products? USA is a capitalist society. It doesn't share profitable ideas. And if AI was really about productivity they'd be talking about doing more faster with the same workforce, not reducing the workforce.
- PetoU 8mo agoif you like, the business model is called Innovation-as-a-Service :) That's perfectly aligned with capitalistic motivations
- alemanek 8mo agoWhat I am excited about is the possibility of LLMs to draw conclusions from the last 150years of scientific papers. There have been lots of instances of knowledge being rediscovered even when it was previously published but sitting on some shelf forgotten. LLMs ability to digest large volumes of data will I think help with this issue. We will still need to reproduce and verify conclusions but will be interesting to see what might come from this.
- cyberpunk 8mo agoI hear this sentiment a lot but it doesn’t ring true for me. What is an idea really and what’s your definition of new? If i get a LLM to spit out, I dunno, a deployment system written in haskell that uses bittorrent or something, none of those bits are new, but certainly there will be unique challenges to solve in the code and it’s a new system. Where is the line for new? Is it in combining old ideas? If not then does any software have “new” ideas? It’s all combinations of processor instructions after all…