Re:Nvidia Trains LLM on Chip Design
by ben_w on Wednesday November 01, 2023 @07:38AM
(#38096977)
What currently exists, what's currently being built, are:
* "Jack of all trades, master of none" general models like GPT and other LLMs, or like diffusion image generator models
* Hyper-focussed expert-to-superhuman performance models like AlphaZero (beats all humans), Cicero (Facebook's Diplomacy player, ranked top 10%), Pluribus (Facebook's no-limit Texas hold 'em poker player), and the one whose name I forget that learns how to map WiFi interference into pose estimation so well it can be used for heart rate/breathing sensing, etc.
And of course, we've got people who say "this can't possibly fail!" who then take a model they don't understand, put it in a loop, give it some money, and then it does something unexpected. Mostly this only results in small-scale problems, but all automation so far has failure modes[0] and there's no reason to presume this trend won't continue even when it's as smart as a human.
If it gets smarter than a human, it might still make actual objective mistakes, but we also have to consider that, within the frame of reference of it's goals[1] it may be perfect, and yet those goals just aren't compatible with our goals, perhaps neither as individuals nor as societies nor as a species.
[0] my favourite example, Cold War, Thule airforce base early warning radar reports a massive radar signature coming over the horizon. All indications are a massive Soviet first-strike!
The operators forgot to tell the system that the Moon wasn't supposed to respond to an IFF ping.
[1] regardless of whether those goals are self-made or imposed from outside as a result of how we as humans construct its rewards, before anyone asks about robot free will or whatever, as the cause of those goals doesn't matter in this case
* "Jack of all trades, master of none" general models like GPT and other LLMs, or like diffusion image generator models
* Hyper-focussed expert-to-superhuman performance models like AlphaZero (beats all humans), Cicero (Facebook's Diplomacy player, ranked top 10%), Pluribus (Facebook's no-limit Texas hold 'em poker player), and the one whose name I forget that learns how to map WiFi interference into pose estimation so well it can be used for heart rate/breathing sensing, etc.
And of course, we've got people who say "this can't possibly fail!" who then take a model they don't understand, put it in a loop, give it some money, and then it does something unexpected. Mostly this only results in small-scale problems, but all automation so far has failure modes[0] and there's no reason to presume this trend won't continue even when it's as smart as a human.
If it gets smarter than a human, it might still make actual objective mistakes, but we also have to consider that, within the frame of reference of it's goals[1] it may be perfect, and yet those goals just aren't compatible with our goals, perhaps neither as individuals nor as societies nor as a species.
[0] my favourite example, Cold War, Thule airforce base early warning radar reports a massive radar signature coming over the horizon. All indications are a massive Soviet first-strike!
The operators forgot to tell the system that the Moon wasn't supposed to respond to an IFF ping.
[1] regardless of whether those goals are self-made or imposed from outside as a result of how we as humans construct its rewards, before anyone asks about robot free will or whatever, as the cause of those goals doesn't matter in this case