Recent submissions

Comment · 3 years ago
Based on rumors, it seems that because the demand is so high and supply so short, that Nvidia is having to select who gets the cards. I bet they're likely thinking about who can do the most impactful work and OpenAI would definitely be in the running for the short list of companies who are actually shipping. So I bet OpenAI / Microsoft got a lot of the newest cards.
Comment · 3 years ago
For sure, I didn't mean to imply OpenAI's time-to-market was the main reason for my singularity comment.

Say what you want about OpenAI, and trust me I think there's a lot of material there, but you can't say they don't ship. Nobody else is even close.

Comment · 3 years ago
So nutty. I didn't think they were going to drop such a huge bomb on the industry. We're firmly in "singularity" territory where the pace of acceleration is so fast, huge strides are being made every day / week, it feels like.
Comment · 3 years ago
Interesting paper. My confidence on the following idea isn't high, but I have an idea I don't think a lot of people agree with me on. The authors pretty convincingly show that transformers don't generalize well. I agree, but I would add that I don't think humans generalize well either, so I don't think showing that transformers don't generalize well precludes them from ultimately being "intelligent" (in some way). In fact, the inability to generalize to new situations is actually a core problem in learning for humans.

For example, think of a college freshmen who knows Algebra and begins Calculus. Even though they have all the fundamental "mental tools" available at their disposal to figure out how to prove that an infinite series converges (or not), I would guess that very few students can actually connect the concepts in the right way to see that. They have to be given examples and be shown how to use the knowledge they gained in algebra and how it applies to infinite series. Is their inability to generalize well evidence that they aren't intelligent?

Perhaps what we're really saying, and the real problem for us, is that these systems aren't intelligent enough to be useful to us. Just like we might say that a very smart student, like a von Neumann, would likely be able to figure out how to solve an infinite series without having seen it before. I think it's reasonable to say "we want transformers to generalize better than the average human."

To that end, I think we'll have to imitate the way that a very smart human solves new problems. For example, the students who are capable of solving an infinite series without having seen the concept before, might use a creative approach of trying different things to see if they can discover the pattern. So, my hunch would be that we will need to provide transformers with bolted-on sub-routines like "generate several hypotheses and test them to see which pattern fits the data best" before we can expect them to generalize well.

Tl;dr: Transformers don't generalize well, but I don't think humans generalize well either, so I don't think that fact precludes their ability to be intelligent in the limit. I think we'll have to imitate how humans generalize by giving the transformers additional "mental tools" before they can generalize like very intelligent humans.

Comment · 3 years ago
Comment · 3 years ago
What's funny is that even though the DGX GH200 is some of the most powerful hardware available, there's such a voracious demand that it's not gonna be enough to quench it. In fact, this is one of those cases where I think the demand will always outpace supply. Exciting stuff ahead.

I heard Elon say something interesting during the discussion/launch of xAI: "My prediction is that we will go from an extreme silicon shortage today, to probably a voltage-transformer shortage in about year, and then an electricity shortage in about a year, two years."

I'm not sure about the timeline, but it's an intriguing idea that soon the rate limiting resource will be electricity. I wonder how true that is and if we're prepared for that.

Comment · 3 years ago
> You found one of your ideas appears in a recently published paper. You can no longer work on it.

This is one of the things I thought of right away when ChatGPT got released last year. "God, there's probably so many PhD candidates right now in NLP feeling despair like all their work was pointless ...as if million of voices cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced."

It's hard in the moment to know whether what you're working on has any utility. So just do your best and keep chugging!

Comment · 3 years ago
Comment · 3 years ago
For sure. Just to be clear, I'm not saying the situation we're in where we have to release it to the general public is a great situation to be in. But I think we're at a point where there's not any optimal solutions, only tradeoffs.
Comment · 3 years ago
I have to disagree. Not releasing it to the public makes it more dangerous. One major downside of all development being done in private is that the AI can very easily be co-opted by our self-appointed betters and you end up with a different kind of dystopia where every utterance, thought and act is recorded and monitored by an AI to make sure no one "steps out of line."

I think the solution is releasing it to the general public with batteries included. At least that way, the rogue AI's that might develop due to irresponsible experiments could be mitigated by white hat researchers who have their own AI bot swarm. In other words, "the only way to stop a bad guy with an AI is a good guy with an AI."

Comment · 3 years ago
Now someone build a bot that goes around looking for rogue bots and warns sysadmins.
Comment · 3 years ago
I'm sure I'm not the only one, but I'd love to see a write-up on that. Prod your colleague to put it somewhere on YT, HN, Reddit or somewhere.
Comment · 3 years ago
I agree with you on that. If it's less than 1% then it does make more sense to think of it that way.
Comment · 3 years ago
Really? I've always been the opposite for some reason. I find it easier to visualize 20% of a pie chart, or of a crowd, or a length, etc. It's a lot harder for me to think about 1/5 of a crowd or 1/5 of a length.

It's tangentially related to this, but I've seen posts on social media over the years of how people visualize different kinds of information. For example, some people think of the months of the year in a vertical fashion, others horizontal.

I'm curious if this is something similar where some people find a certain way of thinking of probability easier than others.

Comment · 3 years ago
We should all be so lucky. It's always sad when it happens though. RIP

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton