upvote

points

by simianwords8 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby qarl8 hours ago|
next
[-]
Maybe I'm wrong - but it seems like some strange form of competitiveness.

They don't care about the advancements themselves, only that the advancements are some sort of cheating that shouldn't "count".

Humanity is profoundly unsettled by AI and is responding with avoidance and denial.

reply
upvoteby howunfortunate8 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
I think it was Roon who said it months ago: "Too many people are not emotionally prepared for if it's not a bubble."
reply
upvoteby goatlover3 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Like killing all of humanity? Agreed, we're not prepared for that.
reply
upvoteby johnsmith18408 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
It can be AGI and still be a bubble?

The internet was pretty important afterall even with a bubble.

reply
upvoteby jjjee8 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Shh. Some people aren’t capable of understanding nuance.
reply
upvoteby howunfortunate7 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Yes, a huge range of possibilities exist. Including that the valuations are exactly accurate, or even too low.

I think the quote above is best as written, with a big emphasis on the "if"

reply
upvoteby johnsmith18407 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Most internet evaluations were lower than what happened. Buuuut, a bubble must pop to answer those.
reply
upvoteby b384848488 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
the opposite is also true
reply
upvoteby howunfortunate7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Do you figure?

I'm pretty AGI-pilled, and I feel perfectly emotionally prepared for if AI stayed at its current capabilities and the S&P dropped 25%.

reply
upvoteby b384848485 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
well a lot of people are really not prepared for the sp to drop even 15% I can tell you that
reply
upvoteby pixl978 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Nobody is prepared if it's not a bubble.
reply
upvoteby willy_k8 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
This dichotomy is counter-productive. The valuations floating around are insane, and the claim that some software can replace every single laborer is one step removed from fiction. At the same time, this stuff is clearly going to change how to world works in countless, deep ways. But the idea that some fancy autocomplete can replace humans ignores the reality of humanity and the fancy autocomplete.

It’s another dot com bubble, not a crypto bubble. Trillion dollar valuations burst once you leave lesswrong.

Edit: very fancy autocomplete. I know what these things are capable of. It’s still not “intelligence”, for X definition of intelligence. And it certainly benefits from having obscene amounts of compete thrown at it. It is awesomely impressive synthesis of data, yet it’s clearly still that.

reply
upvoteby john_strinlai8 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
i dont think humans are going to be replaced either, but calling the thing that solves millennium problems and is currently changing multiple industries entirely a "fancy autocomplete" makes it harder to take any point you are making seriously.
reply
upvoteby qarl8 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
The "auto-complete" thing is a false framing.

Complete this sentence: "You can solve world hunger by..."

Intelligence is required to finish sentences. It's not just a Markov chain.

reply
upvoteby mossTechnician7 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Leaving aside the fact we have solutions for things like climate change and will not implement them, regardless of who or what recommends them... My keyboard offers "You can solve world hunger by using a Ted Bungie algorithm." Which sounds reasonable on its face until I research Ted Bungie and the algorithms he developed.

Granted, my phone keyboard lacks a substantial dictionary, offers words instead of tokens, has a very small context window, and doesn't randomize outputs (Ted Bungie is its primary recommendation every time), but those are basically parameters to the existing autocomplete.

reply
upvoteby willy_k7 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Fair point. In that case, it’s imperative you share this* with your local representative: https://chatgpt.com/share/6ab29440-6944-83ea-853f-8060dc58da...

*This un actionable summary of existing discourse. The real world doesn’t produce traces or take HTTP requests.

reply
upvoteby qarl7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
You're straw manning me.

Obviously there is no solution to world hunger right now. Nevertheless - finishing sentences is not pattern matching - and it's extremely obvious that whatever is going on inside LLMs is not pattern matching.

reply
upvoteby willy_k7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Language is absolutely pattern matching, and the whole thing is that the more patterns you put in, the more the transformer can pull out what’s useful. Agents are this effective because people figured out that training on tasks being completed gets the models to complete tasks - that’s pattern matching.

And it can only go so far, where those patterns are feasibly captured, eg internet discussions and coding and mathematics. It won’t measure up to the scaling laws of the physical world.

reply
upvoteby qarl6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> Language is absolutely pattern matching

OK - so long as you also agree that language is thought.

Until the advent of LLMs - language was considered the pinnacle of human intelligence. But humans have some need for mysticism at the root of their beliefs - so they chase the gaps in our knowledge. Like "God of the gaps."

Sure, world models will help navigate physical space; they are effectively the animal mind. Will they help unwind the laws of the universe? Probably not at all. Language is sufficient. Because it is thought.

reply
upvoteby willy_k6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Language reflects thought. LLMs are a search function over text, text that reflects previous thought; they cannot create.
reply
upvoteby qarl6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> they cannot create

Every single day we have new and wondrous examples of the things LLMs have created.

Clearly we are using very different definitions of the word.

reply
upvoteby willy_k5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Synthesize != create. A new combination of existing things is different from a new thing
reply
upvoteby qarl5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Music is combined notes. Stories are combined words. Newton combined existing mathematics to produce calculus.

I'm wondering if you can name anything that counts as a "creation" under your definition?

reply
upvoteby willy_k2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Stories and music, their character, comes from combined motifs and themes. These are what gives them meaning. Creation is tied to meaning; one can’t separate human meaning out of the conversation. Without human meaning - new perspectives gained, beauty found - all things are equivalently pointless, and all an LLM is doing is shifting (very high-order, having gone through the steps to end up in training data) entropy around.
reply
upvoteby qarl1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
No - I mean my question genuinely. I'd like you to name one specific creation that isn't a combination of what has come before it.

I'd rather get specific than talk about hypotheticals.

reply