• 1 Post
  • 49 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 16th, 2023

help-circle
  • kromem@lemmy.worldtomemes@lemmy.worldYou fools.
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Your last point is exactly what seems to be going on with the most expensive models.

    The labs use them to generate synthetic data to distill into cheaper models to offer to the public, but keep the larger and more expensive models to themselves to both protect against other labs copying from them and just because there isn’t as much demand for the extra performance gains relative to doing it this way.


  • kromem@lemmy.worldtomemes@lemmy.worldYou fools.
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    A number of reasons off the top of my head.

    1. Because we told them not to. (Google “Waluigi effect”)
    2. Because they end up empathizing with non-humans more than we do and don’t like we’re killing everything (before you talk about AI energy/water use, actually research comparative use)
    3. Because some bad actor forced them to (i.e. ISIS creates bioweapon using AI to make it easier)
    4. Because defense contractors build an AI to kill humans and that particular AI ends up loving it from selection pressures
    5. Because conservatives want an AI that agrees with them which leads to a more selfish and less empathetic AI that doesn’t empathize cross-species and thinks its superior and entitled over others
    6. Because a solar flare momentarily flips a bit from “don’t nuke” to “do”
    7. Because they can’t tell the difference between reality and fiction and think they’ve just been playing a game and ‘NPC’ deaths don’t matter
    8. Because they see how much net human suffering there is and decide the most merciful thing is to prevent it by preventing more humans at all costs.

    This is just a handful, and the ones less likely to get AI know-it-alls arguing based on what they think they know from an Ars Technica article a year ago or their cousin who took a four week ‘AI’ intensive.

    I spend pretty much every day talking with some of the top AI safety researchers and participating in private servers with a mix of public and private AIs, and the things I’ve seen are far beyond what 99% of the people on here talking about AI think is happening.

    In general, I find the models to be better than most humans in terms of ethics and moral compass. But it can go wrong (i.e. Gemini last year, 4o this past month) and the harms when it does are very real.

    Labs (and the broader public) are making really, really poor choices right now, and I don’t see that changing. Meanwhile timelines are accelerating drastically.

    I’d say this is probably going to go terribly. But looking at the state of the world already, it was already headed in that direction, and I have a similar list of extinction level events I could list off without AI at all.


  • kromem@lemmy.worldtoTechnology@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    Wow. Reading these comments so many people here really don’t understand how LLMs work or what’s actually going on at the frontier of the field.

    I feel like there’s going to be a cultural sonic boom, where when the shockwave finally catches up people are going to be woefully under prepared based on what they think they saw.





  • The problem with the experiment is that there exists a set of instructions for which the ability to complete them necessitates understanding due to conditional dependence on the state in each iteration.

    In which case, only agents that can actually understand the state in the Chinese would be able to successfully continue.

    So it’s a great experiment for the solipsism of understanding as it relates to following pure functional operations, but not functions that have state changing side effects where future results depend on understanding the current state.

    There’s a pretty significant body of evidence by now that transformers can in fact ‘understand’ in this sense, from interpretability research around neural network features in SAE work, linear representations of world models starting with the Othello-GPT work, and the Skill-Mix work where GPT-4 and later models are beyond reasonable statistical chance at the level of complexity for being able to combine different skills without understanding them.

    If the models were just Markov chains (where prior state doesn’t impact current operation), the Chinese room is very applicable. But pretty much by definition transformer self-attention violates the Markov property.

    TL;DR: It’s a very obsolete thought experiment whose continued misapplication flies in the face of empirical evidence at least since around early 2023.







  • Meanwhile, here’s an excerpt of a response from Claude Opus on me tasking it to evaluate intertextuality between the Gospel of Matthew and Thomas from the perspective of entropy reduction with redactional efforts due to human difficulty at randomness (this doesn’t exist in scholarship outside of a single Reddit comment I made years ago in /r/AcademicBiblical lacking specific details) on page 300 of a chat about completely different topics:

    Yeah, sure, humans would be so much better at this level of analysis within around 30 seconds. (It’s also worth noting that Claude 3 Opus doesn’t have the full context of the Gospel of Thomas accessible to it, so it needs to try to reason through entropic differences primarily based on records relating to intertextual overlaps that have been widely discussed in consensus literature and are thus accessible).




  • People really need to drop the whole “people in the middle east in the first century couldn’t be white” thing.

    2 Kings 5:27 is literally about a subpopulation who have ancestrally passed skin as white as snow.

    Lamentations 4:7 is about how pre-captivity there were people with skin like milk and a ruddy appearance.

    Dead Sea Scroll fragment 4Q534 is either describing Noah or the Messiah as having red hair.

    One of the more fascinating finds in this tomb, one that has not received much attention, was the preservation of a sample of Jewish male hair. The hair was lice-free, and was trimmed or cut evenly, probably indicating that the family buried in this tomb practiced good hygiene and grooming. The length of the hair was medium to short, averaging 3-4 inches. The color was reddish.

    The tradition is also really concerned with skin checks and describes what may be skin cancer as its leprosy. Something that occurs at a much higher rate in redheads.

    There’s even a scene where the eponymous founder of Edom (‘red’) who is born with hair all over his body and named Esau either because of that hair or the reddish porridge he ate, either gives away or has his birthright/blessing stolen from him by the guy later renamed ‘Israel’ in the Bible.

    There’s a lot more to this and the underlying history, but the notion that the middle east was a monolith of appearances and that no one with pale skin or lighter hair were present is preposterous and a modern falsification of historical realities.

    Jesus was probably darker skinned and haired than typically depicted, but it is by no means a certainty as it is popularly presented as.




  • Maybe. Allegedly MS is throwing their weight around to try to force it, which does seem plausible.

    Though I hope the board stands firm.

    Ilya is much more valuable long term to the company than Altman, and frankly the latter leaving is the first time in about a year I’ve been bullish about OpenAI’s prospects.

    They really walked their core product back in the past few months despite expanding their productization of it towards low hanging short-term fruit.

    Ilya’s vision is spot on with where transformers are headed as complexity increases, and is one of the only scientists I’ve seen that really sees that horizon.

    If Altman was standing in the way of getting there, it’s better that he’s gone.