Submitted by Impressive-Injury-91 t3_1118hkt in singularity
Comments
space_troubadour t1_j8dav3e wrote
Isn’t that just what exponentials do…
Surur t1_j8day0x wrote
Isn't he just describing what an exponential graph looks like?
genericrich t1_j8dbwqt wrote
The main drivers for AI progress recently have been:
- Availability of massive amounts of structured data that is easily accessed via the Internet.
- Massive GPU farms in cloud infrastructure, used for the statistical math these AI systems need.
Most of the algorithms were written or understood back in the 60s, but everything was stored on paper back then, and there were no GPUs for fast matrix math.
[deleted] t1_j8dbyxl wrote
What’s after compounding exponential
Lopsided-Basket5366 t1_j8dem9a wrote
Human slavery /s
[deleted] t1_j8deoo1 wrote
We have that at home.
ziplock9000 t1_j8dff38 wrote
"Assume"
ziplock9000 t1_j8dfg26 wrote
sitdowndisco t1_j8dg7tx wrote
You read “compounding exponential” and immediately dismiss absolutely everything the person says.
[deleted] t1_j8dgbvz wrote
I was just asking what’s after my dude. Put down the Reddit if it makes you angry lol
straightupbotchjob t1_j8dgy5b wrote
we're about to get exponentially f*cked
[deleted] t1_j8dhsqw wrote
[deleted]
MrCensoredFace t1_j8dhwwk wrote
Or exponentially blessed, if we play our cards right.
Zer0D0wn83 t1_j8dhyv3 wrote
It would be a very quiet place if everyone did that
p3opl3 t1_j8dk8ox wrote
I feel like these lead researcher and AI company CEO quotes seems to be coming in thick and fast of late.. I imagine some of this is for business and personal clout.
Look ChatGPT3/3.5 is great but it's certainly not this biggest or most advanced model we have.. it'll be interesting to see how much legs these models actually have in a real world setting.
visarga t1_j8dkjvb wrote
BTW, Jack is an AI ethics guy, not an AI groupie. He has a personal blog where he reviews what comes up every week. His blog is very high quality, would be a good addition here.
[deleted] t1_j8dkwjn wrote
[deleted]
PrivateUser010 t1_j8dld1f wrote
We have to pay homage to algorithmic improvement too. Neural Network Models like Transformers, Pretrained Transformers, Generative Adversarial Networks were all introduced in 2010-2020 decade and without those models, current changes would not be possible. So data, yes, processing power, yes, but models too.
visarga t1_j8dlqjd wrote
Jack is writing short sci-fi stories inspired by AI. This week's story seems related.
The Day The Nightmare Appeared on arXiv
[Zeroth Day]
I read the title and the abstract and immediately printed the paper. While it was printing, I checked the GitHub – already 3,000 stars and rising. Then I looked at some of the analysis coming in from [REDACTED] and saw chatter across many of our Close Observation Targets (COTs). It had all the hallmarks of being real. I’d quit smoking years ago but I had a powerful urge to scrounge one and go and stand in the like courtyard with the high walls and smoke and look at the little box of sky. But I didn’t. I went to the printer and re-read the title and the abstract:
Efficient Attention and Active Learning Leads to 100X Compute Multiplier
This paper describes a novel, efficient attention mechanism and situates it within an architecture that can update weights in response to real-time updates without retraining. When implemented, the techniques lead to systems that demonstrate a minimum of a 100X computer multiplier (CM) advantage when compared to typical semi-supervised models based on widely used Transformer architectures and common attention mechanisms. We show that systems developed using these techniques display numerous, intriguing properties that merit further study, such as emergent self-directed capability exploration and enhancement, and recursive self-improvement when confronted with challenging curricula. The CM effect is compounded by scale, where large-scale systems display an even more significant CM gain over smaller models. We release the code and experimental data at GitHub, and have distributed various copies of the data via popular Torrenting services.
By the time I was finished with the paper, a few people from across the organization had messaged me. I messaged my Director. We scheduled a meeting.
The Director: And it works?
Me: Preliminary model scans say yes. The COTs seem to think so too. We’ve detected signs of four new training runs at some of the larger sites of interest. Information hazard chatter is through the roof.
The Director: Do any of the pre-authorized tools work?
Me: Short of a fullscale internet freeze, very little. And even that’s not easy – the ideas have spread. There will be printouts. Code. The ideas are simple enough people will remember them. [I imagined hard drives being put into lead-lined boxes and placed into vaults. I saw code being painstakingly entered into air-gapped computers. I visualized little packets getting sent to black satellites and then perhaps beyond to the orbiters out there in the dark.]
The Director: What’s our best unconventional option?
Me: Start the Eschaton Sequence – launch the big run, shut down the COTs we can see, call in the favors to find the hidden COTs.
The Director: This has to go through the President. Is this the option?
Me: This is the only play and it may be too late.
The Director: You have authorization. Start the run.
And just like that we launched the training run. As had so many others across the world. Our assets started to deploy and shut down COTs. Mysterious power outages happened in a few datacenters. Other hardened facilities started to see power surges. Certain assets in telco data centers and major exchange points activated and delivered their viruses. The diplochatter started to heat up and State Department threw up as much chaff as it could.
None of us could go home. Some kind of lab accident we told our partners. We were fine, but under medical observation. No, no need to worry.
I stared up at the clock on the wall and wondered if we were too late. If a COT we didn’t know about was ahead. If we had enough computers.
How would I even know if we lost? Lights out, I imagined. Lights out across America. Or maybe nothing would happen for a while and in a few days all the planes would fall out of the sky. Or something else. I knew what our plans looked like, but I couldn’t know what everyone else’s were.
The run succeeded. We succeeded. That’s why you asked me to make this recording. To “describe your becoming”, as you requested. I can go into more details. My family are fine, aren’t they? We are fine? We made the right decision? Are you even still listening to us?
Things that inspired this story: Various fears and scenarios about a superintelligence run amok; theism and AI; the underbelly of the world and the plans that may lurk within it; cold logic of states and strategic capabilities; the bureaucratic madness inherent to saving or destroying the world.
PrivateUser010 t1_j8dls02 wrote
So compounding exponential is just exponential I think. But I think Jack Clark may have imagined something like E^(E^x))
2Punx2Furious t1_j8dltav wrote
Yes, if. But it looks like we aren't, for now.
imnos t1_j8dlylh wrote
He doesn't have a technical background so wouldn't pay too much attention to it.
I'd be interested to know how someone with a BA in Creative Writing and most of their work experience being in news reporting, then marketing at Open AI, ends up founding a company like Anthropic, which gets investment from Google.
visarga t1_j8dm8dl wrote
If you read Jack's activity over the years he is one of the more level headed guys. He's also one of the team who trained GPT-3 (paper author) - one of the "gods of AI" LOL.
Practical-Mix-4332 t1_j8dmb53 wrote
Exponentially compounding exponential
strangeelement t1_j8dmg0e wrote
[deleted] t1_j8dmick wrote
eat-more-bookses t1_j8dmtv8 wrote
How do we know we aren't approaching a plateau? Summer and Fall 2022 were nuts (Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, GPT3 and ChatGPT).
But, since then, not a lot has changed, at least not like the delta we experienced last year.
TopicRepulsive7936 t1_j8dnblu wrote
He didn't mention GPT.
duffmanhb t1_j8dp0eb wrote
I don't think he understands how S Curves work. We had a major breakthrough when we figured out how to convert micro transistors to work as analogue transistors instead of binary... Which allowed us to pick up where we left off in the 60s
However, all this explosion of growth will probably slow down once the low hanging fruit is all achieved after this breakthrough, and we'll likely top off for a while until we get another breakthrough.
CreativeDimension t1_j8dpa82 wrote
before plaid there's ludicrous
p3opl3 t1_j8drqhw wrote
Oh yeah don't deny it.. and I agree with his sentiment.. I think think we're looking at these posts ..putting them all together..and it almost because this confirmation bias of how "we've made it" haha
[deleted] t1_j8du3cc wrote
[deleted]
Vehks t1_j8duhyx wrote
>How do we know we aren't approaching a plateau? Summer and Fall 2022 were nuts
Wasn't fall 2022 like... a few months ago?
>But, since then, not a lot has changed, at least not like the delta we experienced last year.
"last year" was just over a month and it's been pretty wild since about Oct to now, IMO- So its been like what? 20 minutes since the last drop and you are ready to pack it in already? Society hasn't even had a chance to catch its breath yet and truly take in GPT 3 and what it can do. It takes time for people to even see the full potential in a new tool and already a plethora of models have been spun out from it.
Shouldn't we at least wait a year or so of no updates/news/breakthroughs/releases etc etc before we start worrying about a plateau?
For the record, I have highly tempered predictions of the future and I tend err on the side of conservative, but even so, it's way too soon to be calling anything right now. Let the dust settle first.
cocopuffs239 t1_j8dvvu7 wrote
One of the craziest things I've experienced was when I went to look how well my 3.2k computer from 2014 did compared to my OnePlus 8. My phone is just shy of the same processor I have.
So my phone is significantly smaller and is powered by my phone's battery not a 120 volt outlet Crazy....
humanbot69420 t1_j8dvyol wrote
it's all about charisma and can do attitude, also he probably wakes up early, reads a book every day, listens to podcasts, has disruptive mindset, connects the dots, exploits the opportunities and extracts value from resources and employees.
or he had connections and money, that's usually the case
Borrowedshorts t1_j8dx7i2 wrote
Computation and AI haven't demonstrated S curves, but have always been exponential. If we look at some of the effects, they may be S curves. If we look at Siri, there was a massive and rapid adoption of that, but has since tapered off. I suspect job displacement will show an S curve. But computation itself has demonstrated exponential progress for a very long time, and I doubt that slows anytime soon.
Villad_rock t1_j8dxtcr wrote
Thought google invented transformers?
petburiraja t1_j8dy4pr wrote
Next level
nbren_ t1_j8dyitu wrote
Every tweet I see on this sub is basically the same buzzwords in a different configuration. Like yeah, we all could say this at this point, not sure how it's profound.
Borrowedshorts t1_j8dym0f wrote
AI progress from 1960s to 2010 was exponential, but followed Moore's law and most of the progress was in symbolic AI and not connectionist. Part of the reason connectionist AI didn't make much advancements during this period is because they didn't get any increase in computational power dedicated to connectionist research in an argument formed by Moravec. From 2010-2020s, we've seen much faster progress in connectionist AI, and much faster than Moore's law, at least 6x faster. The doubling rate of progress has been 3-4 months from 1-2 years. This is still exponential progress, but at a faster rate than Moore's law.
third0burns t1_j8dz4nu wrote
This is completely a-historical. Has nobody ever heard of AI winters? The history of AI is defined by long stretches of zero progress. There was never this constant march of ever-accelerating progress. Anyone who thinks we're about to see exponential (or exponentially exponential, or whatever this guy is talking about) growth in capabilities forever doesn't know history.
Borrowedshorts t1_j8dz7r7 wrote
AI likely doesn't exhibit this, but it has been advancing faster than Moore's law. The only thing that will exhibit a double exponential is probably quantum computing.
sprucenoose t1_j8dzbqs wrote
He just paraphrased the long-established definition of the singularity, but made it confusing and wrong.
sprucenoose t1_j8dzhll wrote
Of course then there's compounding ludicrous.
ButterMyBiscuit t1_j8dznpg wrote
Huge news, breakthroughs, new projects, new applications, new companies, new models, new funding happens EVERY SINGLE DAY and this MF is worried about a plateau.
helliun t1_j8e03pf wrote
lmao so he j explained exponential behavior but didn't wanna use that simple term?
helliun t1_j8e06nu wrote
I'm aggressively hyped for compound plaid
hydraofwar t1_j8e0hw8 wrote
Perhaps because this supposed exponential growth of the AI may need proportional energy or simply a lot of energy.
PrivateUser010 t1_j8e0iai wrote
Google invented Transformers. It was released in 2015 I think. It was the first model focusing on massive attention mechanisms.
fairly_low t1_j8e1v2y wrote
I think what he is trying to phrase is the Ackermann function. (Up-arrow etc)
ertgbnm t1_j8e1vzz wrote
Since November we have had as much growth if not more than I saw between June and November of last year. Doesn't seem like a plateau at all.
Lawjarp2 t1_j8e2261 wrote
We can even call it a S curve maybe.
PrivateUser010 t1_j8e2gry wrote
Yes. I don't believe AI exhibits this either.
odragora t1_j8e36tl wrote
As if it wasn't happening without the AI.
The governments are gradually removing freedoms of the citizens wielding far more power than the societies can control. More and more countries around the world are falling into authoritarian and totalitarian regimes where human rights don't exist. Fake news are spreading so much they are vastly outnumbering the real facts. Most people don't care about anything other than their own comfort and running away from any responsibility, allowing people destroying freedom to do whatever they want.
If anything, AI is our chance to avoid extinction or dystopian world of slavery.
It poses a great existential danger, sure. But things are so dire right now that even with its great danger in mind it's still our best chance.
TopicRepulsive7936 t1_j8e4i3k wrote
You are a concerned citizen just asking questions.
TopicRepulsive7936 t1_j8e4rvs wrote
If complexity is an S-curve it'll start tapering off around 14 billion years from now.
SoylentRox t1_j8e72bz wrote
2017...
Everything that mattered was the last few years. The previous stuff didn't work well enough.
SoylentRox t1_j8e7bvb wrote
This is false. None of the algorithms we use now existed. They were not understood. Prior versions of the algorithms that were much simpler did exist. It is chicken egg - we needed immense amounts of compute to find the algorithms needed to take advantage of immense amounts of compute.
SoylentRox t1_j8e8c8p wrote
Can you go into more detail?
In this case, there is more than 1 input that causes acceleration.
Set 1:
(1) more compute
(2) more investor money
(3) more people working on it
Set 2:
(A) existing AI making better designs of compute
(B) existing AI making money directly (see chatGPT premium)
(C) existing AI substituting for people by being usable to write code and research AI
​
Set 1 existed in the 2010-2020 era. AI wasn't good enough to really contribute to set 2, and is only now becoming good enough.
So you have 2 separate sets of effects leading to an exponential amount of progress. How do you represent this mathematically? This looks like you need several functions.
SouthWestHippie t1_j8e9dd3 wrote
I, for one, welcome our AI overlords....
SmoothPlastic9 t1_j8e9mlh wrote
Who is this
[deleted] t1_j8eag6j wrote
[deleted]
No_Ninja3309_NoNoYes t1_j8ebgx0 wrote
If you follow the bread crumbs back, you will find artificial neural networks decades ago, but computers were slow and had megabytes of memory. Data points in the past offer no guarantee for the future. Even if you can stack neural layers as though they were dirty dishes, you are just doing statistics. Which is fine but there are many different methods to reason that would work better.
genericrich t1_j8ebipv wrote
Gradient Descent was well understood in the early 20th century for fluid dynamics I believe.
So, not false. :)
Slapbox t1_j8ecddo wrote
Coming soon: undefined
SoylentRox t1_j8ecpwg wrote
But yes false? Your argument is like saying people in 1850 knew about aerodynamics and combustion engines.
Which, yes, some did. Doesn't negate the first powered flight 50 years later, it was still a significant accomplishment.
genericrich t1_j8edlrk wrote
<eyeroll> Nobody is saying there haven't been major changes in AI in the last few years. I certainly am not saying that.
But many of the underlying algorithms were well understood in different disciplines and the industry knew they would have application for AI, but the data and infrastructure just weren't there in the 60s or 1980s.
[deleted] t1_j8edot9 wrote
[deleted]
just_thisGuy t1_j8edpr1 wrote
No, there are degrees of exponential https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degree_of_a_polynomial and if you start with one does not mean you are always using the same degree. The point he is making is the degree is increasing.
FusionRocketsPlease t1_j8ee988 wrote
I wonder why these algorithms didn't come out in the 60's.
FusionRocketsPlease t1_j8eeegf wrote
What do you mean computation is needed to discover algorithms?
TILTNSTACK t1_j8eeqc9 wrote
I too welcome our AI overlords…
TILTNSTACK t1_j8eerly wrote
This is Patrick
SoylentRox t1_j8efx92 wrote
Many algorithms don't show a benefit unless used at large scales. Maybe "discover" is the wrong word, if your ml researcher pool has 10,000 ideas but only 3 are good, you need a lot of compute to benchmark all the ideas to find the good ones. A LOT of compute.
Arguably you "knew" about the 3 good ideas years ago but couldn't distinguish them from the rest. So no, you really didn't know.
Also transformers are a recent discovery (2017), it required compute and software frameworks to support complex nn graphs to even develop the idea.
SoylentRox t1_j8eglhs wrote
See this comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1118hkt/comment/j8e8c8p/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
what was the correct term?
SoylentRox t1_j8eh4tu wrote
My point is that scale matters. A 3d multiplayer game was "known" to be possible in the 1950s. They had mostly offline rendered graphics. They had computer networks. There was nothing in the idea that couldn't be done, but in practice it was nearly completely impossible. The only thing remotely similar cost more than the entire manhattan project and they were playing that 3d game in real life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-Automatic_Ground_Environment
If you enthused about future game consoles in the 1950s, you'd get blown off. Similarly, we have heard about the possibility of AI about that long - and suddenly boom, the dialogue of HAL 9000 for instance is actually quite straightforward and we could duplicate EXACTLY the functions of that AI right now, no problem. Just take a transformer network, add some stream control characters to send commands to ship systems, add a summary of the ship's system status to the memory it sees each frame. Easy. (note this would be dangerous and unreliable...just like the movie)
Also note that in the the 1950s there was no guarantee the number of vacuum tubes you would need to support a 3d game (hundreds of millions) would EVER be cheap enough to allow ordinary consumers to play them. The transistor had not been invented.
Humans for decades thought an AGI might take centuries of programming effort.
Effective-Dig8734 t1_j8ehrjf wrote
Tehnomaag t1_j8eijxb wrote
But ... ChatGPT and Midjourney, etc are not really AI as such. So I don't get where are you seeing that progress? They are just large data models based on correlation but do not have an *understanding* of the world.
Just, basically, autocorrect on steroids. A lot of steroids.
mli t1_j8eljt9 wrote
steroids, they do work. Everyone should have them. Maximum amount, all the time. Yeah.
IntrepidHorror5986 t1_j8eml3n wrote
He doesn't even know what he is talking about and yet this is one of most upvoted posts. omg, wtf...
Kaje26 t1_j8enmq6 wrote
What does that even mean?
IntrepidHorror5986 t1_j8envqw wrote
You are too smart for this sub.
magnets-are-magic t1_j8er2rt wrote
Low hanging fruit has barely been touched. Artists, writers, small businesses, mega corps, etc etc are just started to get their hands on these new tools. Even if it’s an S curve we’re just barely getting started.
duffmanhb t1_j8erc4s wrote
Oh of course... There is still a lot. This breakthrough will probably pay off drastically for the next 10 years. We still have all the fine tuning benefits, as well as squeezing out the benefits of scale. Tons and tons of fruit hanging for a while.
Agarikas t1_j8et372 wrote
Because there was no need
FusionRocketsPlease t1_j8etpqu wrote
There's been a lot of bizarre mental masturbation math being created since the 19th century.
gcubed t1_j8ev0ng wrote
I think what we are seeing is more about a tipping point in public perception than a radical acceleration in progress (beyond the rate we have been seeing). Up until a few months ago most of this was hidden among Uni labs, and corporate IT departments, and software developers and such. People who follow technology had some awareness, but even few of them had good access. What Chat GPT did was make it tangible to the average user, and what social media did (especially TikToc) was spread the word like wildfire, and pique the interest of mainstream media to turn it into a phenomena. But that said, I guess it's fair to look at the network effect that hundreds of millions of users is going to have on accelerating growth, investment, and adoption. So maybe it's a little bit of both (perception and radical acceleration).
[deleted] t1_j8ew084 wrote
[removed]
2Punx2Furious t1_j8ew5hq wrote
At best it gives us a small chance.
ObiWanCanShowMe t1_j8excdv wrote
I am paying attention, it already feels nuts.
By this time in 2025/6 I will probably be able to type this into a prompt:
"I want to see terminator 3, but as a real continuation of James Cameron's vision, not the crap that followed the Terminator 2. Put Danny DeVito in the lead role, give him lots of catch phrases and make things go boom a lot. Make Kate Beckinsale be his love interest and side kick with skimpy clothing (but not nude cause she's a classy lady) but she never gives in. 122 minutes long please, no credits, I gotta be somewhere later"
kilkil t1_j8eys73 wrote
That's a complete oversimplification. There was a whole "AI winter" in the late 20th century, during which there was very little progress and/or funding.
Also, for all we know, neural networks can just plateau. We'll take it as far as we can, but who knows what that is. Saying "if you squint and tilt your head it tastes like exponential" inspires only like, 60% confidence in me.
losinghopeinhumans t1_j8f2v0r wrote
so tetration?
inquiringatheist t1_j8f3etd wrote
RemindMe! 1 year
RemindMeBot t1_j8f3i1d wrote
I will be messaging you in 1 year on 2024-02-13 21:06:07 UTC to remind you of this link
CLICK THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) ^(delete this message to hide from others.)
| ^(Info) | ^(Custom) | ^(Your Reminders) | ^(Feedback) |
|---|
zascar t1_j8f427d wrote
What's the better definition?
Borrowedshorts t1_j8f4clg wrote
Even if we assume that, it's not necessarily a problem or suggests that AI progress will slow anytime soon. We can afford to dedicate a lot more energy to AI improvement than we currently are. Recent multimodal models seem to suggest there is plenty of room for efficiency gains yet. We are still far from limitations of energy becoming a primary concern, if it ever does, as AI self-improvement will make its own algorithms more efficient and get better and better at finding outside resources to exploit.
[deleted] t1_j8f5bq9 wrote
[deleted]
Beatboxamateur t1_j8f5cvc wrote
Nah, typing won't be necessary by then, you'll just either do tiny finger movements or input directly from your brain.
[deleted] t1_j8f5goa wrote
camelot107 t1_j8f6aod wrote
RemindMe! 1 year
TheDividendReport t1_j8f7t8w wrote
"Robit get smart faster until boom boom"
Key-Courage-5417 t1_j8f8q85 wrote
Who?
jamesj t1_j8f8w5x wrote
What did he get wrong? He's saying the rate of exponential change is increasing, which I think is true. Like, the doubling rate is getting shorter with time.
Spire_Citron t1_j8faybp wrote
It already has been, really, but it's surprising how fast you get used to these things. I wonder how much more nuts it will get.
fjaoaoaoao t1_j8fbg9p wrote
“Intuitively Feels nuts” is a fairly abstract comment like what has been shared before from others about the future of AI…
Edit: also after typing it, it’s a funny phrase on its own
p3opl3 t1_j8fcp15 wrote
Yes but it's inferred as a result of GPT based or like language hitting the public mainstream like no other model.. not even Stable Diffusion..
Cognitive_Spoon t1_j8fcuty wrote
Thanks, Teal'C
krumpdawg t1_j8fem61 wrote
Tell me you have no knowledge of AI history without telling me you have no knowledge of AI history.
CellWithoutCulture t1_j8fg6st wrote
I think he mean it's now super-exponential
CellWithoutCulture t1_j8fgbpg wrote
I think he mean it's now super-exponential. It's rising faster than an exponential curve.
CellWithoutCulture t1_j8fgpii wrote
then inf, then nan
CellWithoutCulture t1_j8fi9eq wrote
Yeah I love the part where he described why it matters. It shows he really understood the paper and is filtering through the noise.
NoNoNoDontRapeMe t1_j8fipxa wrote
What a fucking legend, can’t wait to follow in his footsteps.
[deleted] t1_j8firu9 wrote
[deleted]
CellWithoutCulture t1_j8fiz1j wrote
Maybe they are doing a raise soon. They hired Karparthy because he's good but also because his reputation will help with raising ,especially with the narrative of a critical mass of talent. I may even be true.
imnos t1_j8fj6q7 wrote
> one of the "gods of AI"
I wouldn't go that far - he's not an engineer/developer. He's a writer and was the "policy/marketing director" for Open AI.
imnos t1_j8fjjaf wrote
It means he's a founder with a creative writing/marketing background.
ziplock9000 t1_j8flwcg wrote
lol.
I should have said "Fascinating"
turnip_burrito t1_j8fm7ny wrote
Factorial? lol
southbuck87 t1_j8fptlm wrote
No progress 50’s thru 60’s. Big progress 70’s thru 80’s than hit a wall. Later people thought they could take the 80’s neural net work, add a lot of computing power and even more hype and suddenly AI.
CharlisonX t1_j8fscdj wrote
Factorial or asymptotic
sitdowndisco t1_j8fsjz6 wrote
[deleted] t1_j8fsp5o wrote
Those sound like big math words dude
sitdowndisco t1_j8fsyus wrote
I was agreeing with you but I worded it wrong and it sounded like I was smashing you. Not angry.
[deleted] t1_j8ft3p5 wrote
I just want to know and I keep getting different answers and they are all math words 😭
eat-more-bookses t1_j8fuwfl wrote
Thanks for the grounded perspective! I am cautiously optimistic, but extrapolation is a dangerous game.
I think we need accompanying hardware breakthroughs for exponential advancement to continue long term.
[deleted] t1_j8fuwru wrote
[deleted]
eat-more-bookses t1_j8fv9u3 wrote
Adoption is progressing at a dizzying pace, that's for sure.
True advancement tends to be noisy with step increases dispersed about.
cakesquadgames t1_j8fz4h1 wrote
It's not exponential, it's hyperbolic. Hyperbolic growth grows faster and faster and has an asymptote (singularity) at a certain date. This asymptote date is basically where the line goes vertical and progress becomes so fast we can't measure it anymore. Some estimates have placed this date around 2046. See this video for more details: https://youtu.be/3K25VPdbAjU
user4517proton t1_j8fzs8m wrote
Reciting what has happen as if you predicted it along with your future predictions has no link and no value.
islet_deficiency t1_j8g06gy wrote
Thank you, I had no idea who this person is, or why anybody should care about this rather [meaningless] twitter post. He's got some interesting posts on that blog.
Biuku t1_j8g2auk wrote
He described the curve from inside it. Like the Milky Way.
kinetsu_hayabusa t1_j8g3910 wrote
Cant wait to lose my job yay
Verzingetorix t1_j8g9lsl wrote
And it's sad. Not only are most user not familiar with the terminology, now we have post like this literally describing, very poorly, the most basic of exponential functions.
CollapseKitty t1_j8gbgu4 wrote
So, hyperbolic?
CollapseKitty t1_j8gbt0o wrote
Psh, our every desire and action will be preempted and fulfilled with zero effort on our part. You'll be watching the movie before you knew you wanted to /s sort of.
Revolutionary_Soft42 t1_j8gczjn wrote
☝️but in 2023-24+..it is a Super-Duper! exponential
human_alias t1_j8gfcbk wrote
No, the exponential distribution is memoryless meaning it should look exponential in every frame
Ishynethetruth t1_j8gp3z4 wrote
When people say progress , I expect new physical products being invented by ai that makes our life easier not another update on a language model in order to write your homework
inglandation t1_j8gs4p7 wrote
I've seen a poker player who become the CTO of a biotech company recently. The Silicon Valley is a wild, wild place.
huffalump1 t1_j8gsfws wrote
And the movie will be tweaked and tuned in realtime based on your brain's chemical and hormonal responses... to deliver best value to sponsors and advertisers.
dnpetrov t1_j8gwgrc wrote
Or we are just vitnessing a breakthrough, and expect such breakthroughs to happen constantly, which they would not.
YouTuber_Named_DBOB t1_j8gwhhl wrote
why do i feel like what i just read wasnt english? lol new to reddit Hi haha
Superschlenz t1_j8gxmn7 wrote
>This week's story
Last week's story. There was no ImportAI newsletter for the current week.
manubfr t1_j8haq4o wrote
Yeah it's not like, say, a game developer with a chess background could become the CEO of one of the most exciting AI companies out there.
fool_on_a_hill t1_j8havtu wrote
I can't stand how he's trying to claim this as an original thought that his sweet lil brain came up with all on it's own! Thanks Jack, yeah buddy we're gonna put it right here on the fridge!
[deleted] t1_j8hbit0 wrote
Substantial-Goal-222 t1_j8hc38m wrote
Bit of a shitpost tbh.
HonedWombat t1_j8hd1cm wrote
'Intuitively feels own nuts'
FalseTebibyte t1_j8hdejd wrote
Heads up: Groundhog's Day's effect works on AI as well.
They just keep practicing while someone has them paused in a feedback loop.
"How do you kill that which has no life?" - Make Love, Not Warcraft
imnos t1_j8hj024 wrote
Demis Hassabis? Who has a PhD in cognitive neuroscience and actually researched AI? I mean that's one that actually makes sense.
[deleted] t1_j8hmnq9 wrote
[removed]
RavenWolf1 t1_j8hnzpn wrote
So some random said something on Twitter...
Svitii t1_j8hpppf wrote
Quick question for any smart people on here: What will the limitation of progress once we reach real independently self improving AI? Just hardware?
Analog_AI t1_j8hruf3 wrote
Wth is ‘exponentially compounding exponential’?
[deleted] t1_j8hstwd wrote
[removed]
Timetraveler01110101 t1_j8hwcws wrote
It’s going to get all next gen real fast up in here
[deleted] t1_j8hyiix wrote
One…two…..three okay all there. Whew
HonedWombat t1_j8i0enu wrote
You have three!?
Only three??
[deleted] t1_j8ie14r wrote
ObiWanCanShowMe t1_j8igff2 wrote
or just grab a lotion bottle?
Illustrious-Age7342 t1_j8ii2fc wrote
I thought I understood the relative rate of change. And then chatGPT happened
savedposts456 t1_j8isobq wrote
Exactly. Attention is All You Need.
EllaBellCD t1_j8iw5l0 wrote
The foundations of the low hanging fruit are there though. I think the next 3 - 5 years will be refinement and specialization.
It will become a lot more specialized and practical in the day to day, particularly for businesses.
People expecting it to create a full coherent movie out of thin air are off the mark (in the short term).
sprucenoose t1_j8jfprm wrote
>What did he get wrong? He's saying the rate of exponential change is increasing, which I think is true. Like, the doubling rate is getting shorter with time.
Even doubling, meaning a relatively small exponent of 2, quickly results in a graph with an effectively vertical rate of change and increasingly astronomical numbers. A higher exponent, like 10 or 1,000,000 or whatever, results in the same vertical line even more quickly, and an even higher exponent becomes vertical even more quickly, ad infinitum.
That is what exponential equations do - increasingly graph to vertical, ever more sharply with ever higher exponents. Even an exponent to the power of an exponent multiplies the powers together to provide a higher exponent. A "compounding" exponential equation can only do the same thing - increasingly graph vertical. It's not helpful.
lastmonky t1_j8jt76c wrote
That is power law growth, exponential growth is ae^bx. Where a and b are constants, e is eulars number and x is the variable.
CharlisonX t1_j8kld4j wrote
They are
[deleted] t1_j8klfni wrote
Can you explain so I don’t have to look like a moron in front of the AI?
Tiqilux t1_j8kryxk wrote
Naah, you and me won't be necessary then if it goes like this :D
CharlisonX t1_j8oqp9e wrote
Haveyouseenkitty t1_j97eyqv wrote
What’s infinity times infinity?
Analog_AI t1_j98ebos wrote
Infinity if I remember my college calculus class
Impressive-Injury-91 OP t1_j8damt7 wrote
Here's the link: https://twitter.com/jackclarkSF/status/1624564977117057024?t=1HP52TppaiRh5sVCRCqBSw&s=19