3 ms·
Why is someone from Planet Labs writing this? Why not, for example, Geoffrey Hinton, the scientist who won the nobel prize for LLM architecture? Or a sci-fi au
by Schlagbohrer 4mo ago
Why is someone from Planet Labs writing this?
Why not, for example, Geoffrey Hinton, the scientist who won the nobel prize for LLM architecture? Or a sci-fi author?
- TeMPOraL 4mo agoBecause the scientists and mathematicians and sci-fi authors have all already been writing about this for the past 20 years (and I mean non-fiction writing), and nobody cared, giving similar dismissals instead.
- cma 4mo agoI believe Hinton dismissed it a lot over those 20 years
- calf 4mo agoHas Hinton written any essay or general article recently? He goes on lots of interviews for sure, but I'd be interested in actually reading his arguments a little more thoroughly.
- reducesuffering 4mo agoPeople seem to oddly not care what Hinton thinks anymore after he hasn't aligned with the groupthink naysaying of AGI risks: 'Hinton said there was a “10% to 20%” chance that AI would lead to human extinction within the next three decades.' “Because the situation we’re in now is that most of the experts in the field think that sometime, within probably the next 20 years, we’re going to develop AIs that are smarter than people. And that’s a very scary thought.” “My worry is that the invisible hand is not going to keep us safe. So just leaving it to the profit motive of large companies is not going to be sufficient to make sure they develop it safely,” he said. “The only thing that can force those big companies to do more research on safety is government regulation.” https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/dec/27/godfather-of-ai-raises-odds-of-the-technology-wiping-out-humanity-over-next-30-years https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/dec/27/godfather...
- root_axis 4mo agoHinton also said we should stop training radiologists 10 years ago because it would be solved by AI.
- cubefox 4mo agoThat's not accurate, see https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/xE2HzcHWPFS9EsJqN/radiology-automation-does-not-generalize-to-other-jobs https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/xE2HzcHWPFS9EsJqN/radiology-...
- leoc 4mo agoHe seems pretty unequivocal in the video: https://youtu.be/2HMPRXstSvQ https://youtu.be/2HMPRXstSvQ . He even points out that it’s something which he’s claimed previously, ruling out the idea that it was some kind of spur-of-the-moment conclusion.
- cubefox 4mo agoPerhaps, but as the other article points out, the human requirement in radiology has a lot to do with legal and insurance requirements. This is similar to how a lawyer may not be better than an AI but the job is still exclusive to humans.
- root_axis 4mo agoYes, Hinton's prediction was inaccurate.
- ceejayoz 4mo agoI was at a major radiology conference recently and the radiologists kinda seemed to agree. (The interventional radiologists are a little less nervous, for now.) Apparently 80% of FDA-approved AI "medical devices" (which covers software, not just hardware) are for radiology. (https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/software-medical-device-samd/artificial-intelligence-enabled-medical-devices https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/software-medical-device-...)
- kristiandupont 4mo agoI don't know whether the author has the competence to theorize about these things or not. What I do know is that understanding the intricacies of how LLM's work does not mean that you are likely to understand or foresee societal implications better than anyone else.
- 3836293648 4mo agoDidn't he get the nobel for NNs? LLMs came much later