6 ms·

There's nothing that AI won't be able to mine and accomplish (aside from being literally human), it's only a matter of hardware and scale at this point. General

by nullbio 28d ago

There's nothing that AI won't be able to mine and accomplish (aside from being literally human), it's only a matter of hardware and scale at this point. Generalized problem solving is a factor of search efficiency over the problem space. The actual software part is all figured out, the only open questions are how to do things efficiently and what the trade-offs are from a hardware perspective, but if hardware paradigms are unlocked then efficiency becomes a secondary factor for the problems we care about. Why bother making an LLM twice as fast if you can make a chip that can process 100mil TPS, for example. You're already in a ballpark where it can do anything you want, with plenty left to spare. The awkward part about all of this is that we're about to enter an age of extreme enslavement at the hands of the major tech companies if we do not focus on distribution of hardware and research, so that everyone can participate in the abundance and automate their daily lives. If we're beholden to frontier labs because they have hoarded all of the cutting edge hardware and we're left with overpriced scraps, we're collectively screwed. They will ensure a false economy is maintained so they can clutch onto a permanent class hierarchy of haves and have-nots and remain the key global decision makers. Automating hardware manufacturing is irrelevant if the hardware is not being distributed fairly, and is weighted to real scarcity instead of artifical scarcity. Take Louis Vuitton for example. They can mass-produce their products for pennies, but they're artificially scarce and incredibly expensive. Imagine if ALL clothing was the price of LV. Now imagine this applies to every single thing you can purchase (or rather, rent - if some of these "elite" get their way), because they've cooked the economy and swallowed all industry. That's where we are headed if distribution and decentralization is not a priority for the world and we let labs like Anthropic pull off their regulatory capture stunts.

xigoi 28d ago
> it's only a matter of hardware and scale at this point. The AI companies have already bought up the world’s entire supply of hardware. There won’t be any more.
- unrented7977 27d ago
  Yes, clearly no more hardware will ever be produced. We've sold all hardware, it's over, everyone go home. Spin down the factories, we already sold all hardware we'll ever make.
timr 27d ago
> There's nothing that AI won't be able to mine and accomplish (aside from being literally human), it's only a matter of hardware and scale at this point. Sure there is: problems that require knowledge that simply doesn't exist yet. Until "AI" turns into general purpose robots that can develop new tools to explore the world, it is, in fact, pretty damned limited in what it can do without human help. The world is vast. Math is small. Biology is replete with examples. Computers "solve" protein folding [1], and midwits immediately leap to conclusions that drug development will also quickly fall. But we literally have no idea how most of biology works, and simply getting to the starting line for drug development problems is often 95% of the battle. Come talk to me when you've done a million experiments to find the fundamental knowledge that unlocks the pathway(s) we didn't know about that makes a drug discovery program possible in the first place [2]. I am not pessimistic about humans running out of challenges. We'll just declare one class of problems "done" [3], and move on to the next frontier, as we always have. The problem with AI doomers is that they lack imagination that extends beyond computers, or perhaps more accurately, are so sophomoric in their thinking that they skip over the hard parts of any problem they don't fully understand. This stuff reminds me of the endless smartypants whinging about the end of human intelligence when chess machines started beating grandmasters. Chess was never really that great a measurement of human intellectual capacity, and we found new things to do with our big monkey brains. [1] They did not solve protein folding, except in the minds of people who don't fully understand the problem. [2] ...and invented new machinery to make the experiments possible in the first place. [3] ...and we'll likely be wrong about that.
- nullbio 27d ago
  > problems that require knowledge that simply doesn't exist yet. Obtaining the knowledge is a process of trial and error, bruteforce, observation, search, etc. Humans follow that same process. Machines can do that too. If they discover or are taught the same heuristics humans use, and a computational capacity greater than that of all humans combined, they will outpace us in this endeavour. > Until "AI" turns into general purpose robots that can develop new tools to explore the world, it is, in fact, pretty damned limited in what it can do without human help. For sure, but this isn't a question of if, but when. LLMs are already rapidly accelerating the pace of every scientific field, so advancements in technology will start to compound. > Biology is replete with examples. Computers "solve" protein folding [1], and midwits immediately leap to conclusions that drug development will also quickly fall. But we literally have no idea how most of biology works, and simply getting to the starting line for drug development problems is often 95% of the battle. Come talk to me when you've done a million experiments to find the fundamental knowledge that unlocks the pathway(s) we didn't know about that makes a drug discovery program possible in the first place [2]. I don't disagree with you. The amount of complexity in biology is incredible and due to its unpredictable squishy and noisy nature and the advanced machinery needed to analyze it with precision at the microscopic scale, vast amounts of data accumulation are still required to discover the useful patterns here, and the search space will be enormous. Still, it will be done. Here is some recent movement in that direction: https://www.anthropic.com/news/model-hardware-standard-research-preview https://www.anthropic.com/news/model-hardware-standard-resea... > I am not pessimistic about humans running out of challenges. We'll just declare one class of problems "done" [3], and move on to the next frontier, as we always have. This is fair, you're probably right about that. I think they'll be challenges for the AI to solve though, not humans as a collective. Hopefully we have something to contribute to that process, other than just expressing our desires. > The problem with AI doomers is that they lack imagination that extends beyond computers, or perhaps more accurately, are so sophomoric in their thinking that they skip over the hard parts of any problem they don't fully understand. This stuff reminds me of the endless smartypants whinging about the end of human intelligence when chess machines started beating grandmasters. Chess was never really that great a measurement of human intellectual capacity, and we found new things to do with our big monkey brains. I'm not an AI doomer, I despise the AI doomer movement and the incessant fearmongering, it's incredibly unhealthy and its only purpose is to perpetuate panic in the aim of maintaining and establishing power, and preventing others from obtaining power that threatens the status quo. What cultish idealogical humans will do with this technology if they're left unchecked with staggering power and no one to stop them is certainly a big concern though.

by nullbio 28d ago

xigoi 28d ago

> it's only a matter of hardware and scale at this point. The AI companies have already bought up the world’s entire supply of hardware. There won’t be any more.

unrented7977 27d ago
Yes, clearly no more hardware will ever be produced. We've sold all hardware, it's over, everyone go home. Spin down the factories, we already sold all hardware we'll ever make.

timr 27d ago

> There's nothing that AI won't be able to mine and accomplish (aside from being literally human), it's only a matter of hardware and scale at this point. Sure there is: problems that require knowledge that simply doesn't exist yet. Until "AI" turns into general purpose robots that can develop new tools to explore the world, it is, in fact, pretty damned limited in what it can do without human help. The world is vast. Math is small. Biology is replete with examples. Computers "solve" protein folding [1], and midwits immediately leap to conclusions that drug development will also quickly fall. But we literally have no idea how most of biology works, and simply getting to the starting line for drug development problems is often 95% of the battle. Come talk to me when you've done a million experiments to find the fundamental knowledge that unlocks the pathway(s) we didn't know about that makes a drug discovery program possible in the first place [2]. I am not pessimistic about humans running out of challenges. We'll just declare one class of problems "done" [3], and move on to the next frontier, as we always have. The problem with AI doomers is that they lack imagination that extends beyond computers, or perhaps more accurately, are so sophomoric in their thinking that they skip over the hard parts of any problem they don't fully understand. This stuff reminds me of the endless smartypants whinging about the end of human intelligence when chess machines started beating grandmasters. Chess was never really that great a measurement of human intellectual capacity, and we found new things to do with our big monkey brains. [1] They did not solve protein folding, except in the minds of people who don't fully understand the problem. [2] ...and invented new machinery to make the experiments possible in the first place. [3] ...and we'll likely be wrong about that.

nullbio 27d ago
> problems that require knowledge that simply doesn't exist yet. Obtaining the knowledge is a process of trial and error, bruteforce, observation, search, etc. Humans follow that same process. Machines can do that too. If they discover or are taught the same heuristics humans use, and a computational capacity greater than that of all humans combined, they will outpace us in this endeavour. > Until "AI" turns into general purpose robots that can develop new tools to explore the world, it is, in fact, pretty damned limited in what it can do without human help. For sure, but this isn't a question of if, but when. LLMs are already rapidly accelerating the pace of every scientific field, so advancements in technology will start to compound. > Biology is replete with examples. Computers "solve" protein folding [1], and midwits immediately leap to conclusions that drug development will also quickly fall. But we literally have no idea how most of biology works, and simply getting to the starting line for drug development problems is often 95% of the battle. Come talk to me when you've done a million experiments to find the fundamental knowledge that unlocks the pathway(s) we didn't know about that makes a drug discovery program possible in the first place [2]. I don't disagree with you. The amount of complexity in biology is incredible and due to its unpredictable squishy and noisy nature and the advanced machinery needed to analyze it with precision at the microscopic scale, vast amounts of data accumulation are still required to discover the useful patterns here, and the search space will be enormous. Still, it will be done. Here is some recent movement in that direction: https://www.anthropic.com/news/model-hardware-standard-research-preview https://www.anthropic.com/news/model-hardware-standard-resea... > I am not pessimistic about humans running out of challenges. We'll just declare one class of problems "done" [3], and move on to the next frontier, as we always have. This is fair, you're probably right about that. I think they'll be challenges for the AI to solve though, not humans as a collective. Hopefully we have something to contribute to that process, other than just expressing our desires. > The problem with AI doomers is that they lack imagination that extends beyond computers, or perhaps more accurately, are so sophomoric in their thinking that they skip over the hard parts of any problem they don't fully understand. This stuff reminds me of the endless smartypants whinging about the end of human intelligence when chess machines started beating grandmasters. Chess was never really that great a measurement of human intellectual capacity, and we found new things to do with our big monkey brains. I'm not an AI doomer, I despise the AI doomer movement and the incessant fearmongering, it's incredibly unhealthy and its only purpose is to perpetuate panic in the aim of maintaining and establishing power, and preventing others from obtaining power that threatens the status quo. What cultish idealogical humans will do with this technology if they're left unchecked with staggering power and no one to stop them is certainly a big concern though.