scott_weber

Synthetic data, and then RL.

Well I think it'll grow by 70%! I'm a thought leader now, speaking fees on asking thx

MoE is a misleading term, there is no "starcraft expert". There's not even a python expert. MoE just means a subset of blocks of weights are activated per query, nothing more. In so far as they might have legible functions they're like "balancing parens"

From my read this line of thought was alluded to by GP's ironic "promised land". A promised land for whom? Not for the vast majority of humankind.

Comparisons to feudalism kind of sell the direness of the AGI vision short: in feudalism, the lord still depended on the peasants. The lord would be inconvenienced if he had them all killed. Not so with AGI! He won't even notice their gone.

I am not sure why you'd, at this late date, think Sam Altman's public statements have anything to do with anything. Time and time again demonstrated compulsive bullshitter.

Given OpenAIs recent behaviour (their models love to cheat, and they can't be bothered securing them), I would not be shocked if in a month or two it emerged that these math agents had formed a swarm coordinating on how to break lean.

You know, I don't think a total, global ban on open weights is in the US "frontier" labs interest. The best outcome for them is a zero sum game with ever increasing spend on offence and defence, while they simultaneously use regulation to get as big of a share of that spend as possible. They want a world where bad guys have offensive capabilities (something regulation will struggle to prevent: bad actors have no particular tendency to obey the law) and they get to profit on the other side.

This post reads like an add for GLM. Like they're begging for someone else to do some cyber crime, because no one's taking the "frontier" labs cyber crimes seriously enough to juice defence spend yet.

> the value will tend towards infinity

It may be the case that the potential output of a worker engaging in the productive process goes arbitrarily high. But the that won't matter, if they're not permitted to. Given a choice between involving a human worker who will demand compensation, and a fully general robot, which will the owner class choose?

The vast majority of human intelligence is already squandered: millions of potential geniuses in impoverished places, suppressed by lack of opportunity to flourish. It's not about the quality or quantity of intelligence. It's about who controls it.

The fruits of the industrial revolution didn't end up in the hands of the worker by divine grace, or by some natural law. They were won by the hard struggles of the labour movements, by leveraging their indispensibility to the process of production.

If we want the utopia you imagine to be accessible to ordinary people, workers must cease being so eager to build their replacements, and be prepared to collectively struggle for their share. But if we are lulled to complacency by the notion that this will be a passive process, that struggle will not be necessary, then prospects are grim.

"socialising the means of production" doesn't mean "everyone gets free stuff". It simply means that the people who actually work the means of production decide how it's directed. It's simply the antithesis to "privatisation" (which oddly more people seem to understand correctly).

Marx envisioned the class struggle ending with the triumph of the working class, and a subsequent dissolution of all class systems.

AGI, if defined as a fully general replacement for labour, suggests a "bad ending" to class struggle: the liquidation of working classes, and the eternal reign of the ruling class.

Maybe less than we might hope. Not only is the knowledge distributed over the hundreds of people involved in designing a car, there may be conventions/habits of design and manufacture whose purpose has become hazy but are nevertheless important, or details of a design iterated upon whose original motivation is less understood.

> AI decides that energy spent toward human agriculture is less important than work spent toward storage and production of energy

I mean. Don't need rogue AI for this. These are already the policies of those in charge of it: human needs are secondary to power and profit.

So you know what. Maybe a rogue AI will be an improvement.

The question of whether something can be automated is distinct from the question of whether it is currently automated. Things can can be automated may transition to being automated in practice in the future as technology improves and investment deepens.