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.