Comment by chimpanzee2
6 days ago
I have this strange sensation that I can't put into words that somehow we are on the brink of unveiling an entirely new paradigm of AIs or perhaps even of combining AI with classical algorithms in a way to rapidly iterate between each other (and sensor data) that will instantly 10x or 100x current capabilities.
Anyone else feel this?
I think part of it is the feeling of false understanding that comes from using llms regularly. They let you operate at a higher conceptual level, and they paper over enough of the actual details that your conceptual model might not actually be correct.
I'm a mechanical engineer by training, and have similar vibes with the similarities I see between llm training and metallurgy. I could probably put together a formal concept for these vibes at this point, but is there actually a "there" there? I have no idea. And it would take me years to actually dive in and learn everything to gain the deep understanding that would be required to know if I'm just experiencing my own brand of AI psychosis or not.
It's a brave new world, that's for sure.
Andrej Karpathy said something along the lines of “while you can use llms to outsource some of your thinking, you can’t use them to outsource your understanding “.
> that will instantly 10x or 100x current capabilities.
In the 1920s we had legions of very smart, highly trained (arguably better trained in mathematics) basically chucking relays and vacuum tubes together with reckless abandon to build the most valuable and complicated systems mankind had ever come up with (telephony, radio, radar, etc). They had no idea how they worked and only ad-hoc rules of thumb to construct them.
It took the insight of a handful of these people both in and outside of industry to formalize the theory of operation of most of what people were already building and then use that theory to establish formal design practices.
The people before these theories were realized were exceptionally smart and good at what they did, it's just they didn't have better design tools to reason about the things they were building.
And once they had those tools they didn't 10x or 100x overnight.
no. we're approach a sigmoid. AI is bloated carcass and we're tweaking out the size of the models and speed they'll run on smaller hardware.
I think to feel what you're feeling, you've bought into "all we need is more context". I think evolution demonstrates that's not really true.
They said "there are algorithmic changes that remains to be discovered" and you said they bought into the idea that "all we need is more context". Seems like opposites to me.
would you really bet that this is it? there is nothing beyond this?
reminds me of the famous anecdote of a 19th century physics professor who said "there is nothing left to be discovered in physics, only minor corrections"
then came Einstein...
That wasn’t just a physics professor that was William Thompson aka Lord Kelvin (the dude the temperature unit is named after and one of the most important mathematical physicists of the 19th century [1]), who also said that heavier than air flight was physically impossible only a couple of weeks before the Wright Brothers (and presumably in spite of having at least once in his lifetime seen a bird). Proof that you can be both very smart and simultaneously a bit of a jackass.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Kelvin
4 replies →
see, I don't need to "bet this"; the inverse is true: the people placing large bets are either going to get their AGI, or fail miserably.
I don't need to bet anything. I'm not a sociopath who thinks the AI god needs to be built, appeased, etc. That's the torment nexus.
So, it's pretty easy to see realistically if you are satisified with local models and how they affect what you actually do.
I can see the POV of a software engineer that isn't specialized to any specific topic being replaced by various models.
But again, I see the sigmoid, not the "AGI" or the "this baby has grow very big in 1 year, urely it'll become a giant in 5.