kosh2

> It works well for certain problems, and falls apart for several others.

Which one does it fall apart?

I am not personally invested in the LLM design at all, I just don't see how you can say that an approach will not solve X when we still see an increasing rate of improvement, not even a slowing of improvement.

You misunderstand. Our definition of AGI is constantly shifting the more capable AI becomes to the point where it is always clearly not there yet and clearly we will not get there with current tech.

> But you just asserted that we do.

No, I say we would have called the current state of things AGI in a pre chatGPT time.

> They explained how. Your argument, OTOH, is nonsensical, like suggesting that, because a bike path was built rapidly, it will soon become a highway.

I'd say it would be something like:

"If a bike can drive 100 km/h, it's clearly a superbike"

[3 years later]

"This bike drives 100 km/h, so it is a superbike"

"No, only a bike that is going 500 km/h is a superbike and this bike is still very far off"

But I didn't talk about magic but AGI. Or you think AGI needs some kind of mystical element?

Various poison does exist that can contaminate an area, don't they? Can you really prove that there cannot be some sort of goo that can be produced cheaply that is really really deadly?

But I'm not arguing about goo, I'm saying that we are gambling with each rogue swarm event that there is no thing out there that can kill us that can't be made happen by that swarm.

And btw, we are in many ways already in sci-fi territory.

I am just amazed how otherwise smart people can say such things. Many people in here too.

Within 4 years of the big bang with ChatGPT, we have seen a development unlike anything we have ever seen. Now LLMs and related architectures can solve our very hardest math problems.

They can speak, they can create videos and pictures, they can control robots. The only thing that they still miss is persistent memory for each agent that is efficient, some LoRa thingy, but I'm sure hundreds of very smart people are working on that.

The development is not stopping at all, in fact it is speeding up. Even if, and that is very unlikely, they will not get smarter, then they will get cheaper and faster.

If openAI can crack major math problems with 10.000 agents, then what can you do with 100 million agents that run 1000 times as fast?

Yeah sure, maybe most of these gigantic swarms will not go rogue if we do our job well. But there will be times when when we make a mistake and a swarm will go rogue. And what if one time the swarm will conclude that killing a lot of humans is an instumental goal.

How can you be sure that if something so powerful looks at every single possbility, every single crack of every single technology that can wipe us out, that it will not fine one?

One new chemical that can poison the entire earth and you only need to impersonate that general and that factories CEO? Some type of prion? A virus? Something that we don't even know about and can't even imagine yet?

I think many people do not truly consider that these swarms will be much smarter than you or me and completely unpredictable.

> That's not going to reach AGI,

It has not been even 4 years since ChatGPT hit and LLMs + Transformers + Whatever they do has gotten us to solving millennium problems.

4 years ago, a program that could create photorealistic pictures, talk to you in any language of the world and solve the hardest math problems that we know, we would have called it AGI.

Now I don't know if what we have is AGI or not but I do not understand how you can see what has happened in the last 3 years and say "it will not get us there" no matter what "there" is.

> we are to cementing a dangerous precedent where operators of AIs cannot be blamed.

What we should be much more concerned is an existential threat to humanity not if anybody can be blamed.

I'm kind of baffled that people talk mostly about technical details when this is another big scream that says: "We are losing control of AI models".

And the smarter they get, the worse it will be. Maybe next time they find a way to hide that we will not find.

I think we are very close to a case were models actually escape and actually do major damage.

That is why I always say: Don't donate to wikipedia, donate to archive.org

Are people still getting infected? Yes? Then it is not a solved problem.

Way before that it will become political. Regulation is the only true threat left anyways.

Windows terminal

This is like saying quantum mechanics is really simple to understand, all you have to do is find the right formula and plug in the numbers.

When people talk about understanding, they mean as knowing how the underlying mechanism works often by finding an analog in real life.

> There is no separation of code and data on the wire - everything is a stream of bytes. There isn't one in electronics either - everything is signals going down the wires.

Would two wires actually solve anything or do you run into the problem again when you converge the two wires into one to apply code to the data?

As long as LLMs have no true memory, this is expected. Think about the movie Memento. That is the experience for an LLM.

What could any human do with a context window of 10 minutes and no other memory? You could write yourself notes… but you might not see them because soon you won’t know they are there. So maybe tattoo them on your body…

You could likely do a lot of things. Just follow a recipe and cook. Drive to work. But could you drive to the hardware store and get some stuff you need to build that ikea furniture? Might be too much context.

I think solving memory is solving agi.

Black holes have the same mass and information as the stars that formed them.

Unless the theory also breaks mass and information conservation, the star that gave birth to our black hole must have been as massive as our entire universe.

I doubt we have any theory how a star that size can have formed.

I have two problems / questions with this:

1. This theory requires a parent universe that can't have been formed inside a black hole. This means there must a be second "universe creation" mechanism that we can / may never know about from our child universe. For me, this doesn't really answer the true question: "How did our universe begin?" Yeah, it may the "unknown field with strange properties" but instead we get an unknown parent universe with strange properties.

2. The black hole in the parent universe must be much much bigger than anything we see in ours since it has to contain all the matter that we see. How is a black hole supposed to form that is 750 billion times bigger than the largest black hole we know about?

How much energy does it cost for a human to generate an image?

I agree with many posters in here, that the cause will likely be bad data one way or another. Maybe we need to take a step back and only use data, that are almost 100% accurate.

Like the time of death after the data was collected.

If a model could with a high accuracy predict, that a patient will die within X days (without proper treatment), it will be already very valuable.

Second, as Sora has shown, going multi model can have amazing benefits.

Get a breath analysis of the patient, get a video, get a sound recording, get an MRI, get a CT, get a full blood sample and then let the model do its pattern finding magic.

> because others know that you have it.

Except that cyber weapons like these are

1. One time use 2. Expire upon detection (mostly)

I think this is simply just a tool for offensive action only.

This is not something that is only a thing within google. Similar things are happening in a lot of companies and even public institutions like schools, universities and public media networks like the BBC.

It's Doctor who traveling to medieval Britain and showing a level of diversity that we see today. Or black Cleopatra. Or black Vikings. The list goes on and on.

In this case, they were overdoing it and so they will turn it down but I doubt they will "turn it off". Of course, the people who are doing it, will never acknowledge it and gaslight anybody who points it out as weird right wing conspiracy nut, but in cases like this, you can see it happening in a very obvious way.

That is not my point. Even if we had a model that could portray reality as objective as possible, a lot of people wouldn't like that and be actually offended by it.

This has also been going on a lot in the "representation" discourse.

A bohemian village 500 years ago would have been 100% white in almost all circumstances. Surgents would be male. Telephone scammers Indian and so on.

But in many ways, simply showing reality is not only not wanted but even offensive. What has to be shown is an idealized version of reality that we want to achieve and that is "more diversity". And what is maximum diversity? Zero white people.

> If you trained a model purely on past history, it would see a 1:1 correlation between "US President" and "man" and decide that women cannot be President.

Why would you think that? You and me also know the history but also realize that a woman can be president.

Why would it accept black then?

If you look at attempts to actively rewrite history, they have to because a hypothetical model trained only on facts would produce results that they won't like

The geofencing part was a bit insane. All plausible deniability goes out of the window right there.

Maybe simply a larger task?

"Write 10 popular mini games"

--> What are those games? 1. Agent --> How does each of them work? 2. Agent --> Write each of those. Agent 3-13

It happens but it is rare. Given the COVID outbreak, it is definitely circumstancial evidence.

Agreed. It would be great if it could ask questions about missing context but maybe language models are bad for that task. Maybe one needs a second run, evaluate the answer and then make it look for info that could improve the answer.

Self-driving cars are much more difficult than one might think because the AI has to interface with the real world, something that humans have evolved for over millions of years.

Like others have said, worry more about every job that primarily interfaces with a computer.