Re:Running large language models like ChatGPT on a single GPU
by JoshCole on Tuesday February 21, 2023 @04:28PM
(#34887667)
So for example, here is what I mean, I flipped to a random page 147 in Bostrom's book and he writes: "If we are wondering whether a mathematical proposition is true we could ask the oracle to produce a proof or disproof of the proposition" because "many mathematical propositions are of this kind" and my immediate reaction is - Gödel incompleteness theorem talks about cases that aren't covered by what he talks about.
See what I mean about failing to truly grapple with intractability? He doesn't address the subject as seriously as it ought to be! It ought to be taken with deadly seriousness, because it isn't a niche thing irrelevant to the discussion.
Notice Turing's halting problem applies when discussing agents reacting to other agents! Notice it!
Notice that decisions in game theory, especially the equilibrium policies we can make claims about, are defined with respect to other policies. Notice it!
Notice that the general category of decision problems we are discussing with regard to intelligence is actually of the sort in which we are dealing with Turing's halting problem and Gödel's incompleteness. This is actually not an irrelevant category which he is excluding - he just accidentally skipped past, with a cheery "most are like this" handwave - most questions actually relevant to intelligent agents.
It wasn't him being clever. It wasn't him being wise. It wasn't him being formidable. It was him clinging to the lights, because he wants to think within the lights.
In contrast, Norvig just admits we have to give up on certain aspects of correctness due to intractability. It is so much more formidable, because he doesn't try to operate just under the light, but explicitly calls attention to the darkness and talks about the implications of grappling with it.
I would say that Bostrom does the same thing, but he gave more attention to the idea of going faster than humans can and less attention to the idea that there is a physical limit to the speed of light. He focuses more on the physical possibility of improvements due to the benefit of increased traction and less on the inevitably of encountering the impossibility of traction.
See what I mean about failing to truly grapple with intractability? He doesn't address the subject as seriously as it ought to be! It ought to be taken with deadly seriousness, because it isn't a niche thing irrelevant to the discussion.
Notice Turing's halting problem applies when discussing agents reacting to other agents! Notice it!
Notice that decisions in game theory, especially the equilibrium policies we can make claims about, are defined with respect to other policies. Notice it!
Notice that the general category of decision problems we are discussing with regard to intelligence is actually of the sort in which we are dealing with Turing's halting problem and Gödel's incompleteness. This is actually not an irrelevant category which he is excluding - he just accidentally skipped past, with a cheery "most are like this" handwave - most questions actually relevant to intelligent agents.
It wasn't him being clever. It wasn't him being wise. It wasn't him being formidable. It was him clinging to the lights, because he wants to think within the lights.
In contrast, Norvig just admits we have to give up on certain aspects of correctness due to intractability. It is so much more formidable, because he doesn't try to operate just under the light, but explicitly calls attention to the darkness and talks about the implications of grappling with it.
I would say that Bostrom does the same thing, but he gave more attention to the idea of going faster than humans can and less attention to the idea that there is a physical limit to the speed of light. He focuses more on the physical possibility of improvements due to the benefit of increased traction and less on the inevitably of encountering the impossibility of traction.