I am extremely curious what the general take around here is on the Singulairty - eviltoast

First, let me say that what broke me from the herd at lesswrong was specifically the calls for AI pauses. That somehow ‘rationalists’ are so certain advanced AI will kill everyone in the future (pDoom = 100%!) that they need to commit any violent act needed to stop AI from being developed.

The flaw here is that there’s 8 billion people alive right now, and we don’t actually know what the future is. There are ways better AI could help the people living now, possibly saving their lives, and essentially eliezer yudkowsky is saying “fuck em”. This could only be worth it if you actually somehow knew trillions of people were going to exist, had a low future discount rate, and so on. This seems deeply flawed, and seems to be one of the points here.

But I do think advanced AI is possible. And while it may not be a mainstream take yet, it seems like the problems current AI can’t solve, like robotics, continuous learning, module reuse - the things needed to reach a general level of capabilities and for AI to do many but not all human jobs - are near future. I can link deepmind papers with all of these, published in 2022 or 2023.

And if AI can be general and control robots, and since making robots is a task human technicians and other workers can do, this does mean a form of Singularity is possible. Maybe not the breathless utopia by Ray Kurzweil but a fuckton of robots.

So I was wondering what the people here generally think. There are “boomer” forums I know of where they also generally deny AI is possible anytime soon, claim GPT-n is a stochastic parrot, and make fun of tech bros as being hypesters who collect 300k to edit javascript and drive Teslas*.

I also have noticed that the whole rationalist schtick of “what is your probability” seems like asking for “joint probabilities”, aka smoke a joint and give a probability.

Here’s my questions:

  1. Before 2030, do you consider it more likely than not that current AI techniques will scale to human level in at least 25% of the domains that humans can do, to average human level.

  2. Do you consider it likely, before 2040, those domains will include robotics

  3. If AI systems can control robotics, do you believe a form of Singularity will happen. This means hard exponential growth of the number of robots, scaling past all industry on earth today by at least 1 order of magnitude, and off planet mining soon to follow. It does not necessarily mean anything else.

  4. Do you think that mass transition where most human jobs we have now will become replaced by AI systems before 2040 will happen

  5. Is AI system design an issue. I hate to say “alignment”, because I think that’s hopeless wankery by non software engineers, but given these will be robotic controlling advanced decision-making systems, will it require lots of methodical engineering by skilled engineers, with serious negative consequences when the work is sloppy?

*“epistemic status”: I uh do work for a tech company, my job title is machine learning engineer, my girlfriend is much younger than me and sometimes fucks other dudes, and we have 2 Teslas…

  • froztbyte@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    ooooookay longpost time

    first off: eh wtf, why is this on sneerclub? kinda awks. but I’ll try give it a fair and honest answer.

    First, let me say that what broke me from the herd at lesswrong was specifically the calls for AI pauses.

    look, congrats on breaking out, but uh… you’re still wearing the prison jumpsuit in the grocery store and that’s why people are looking at you weirdly

    “yay you got out” but you got only half the reason right

    take some time and read this

    This seems deeply flawed

    correct

    But I do think advanced AI is possible

    one note here: “plausible” vs “possible” are very divergent paths and likelihoods

    in the Total Possible Space Of All Things That Might Ever Happen, of course it’s possible, but so are many, many other things

    it seems like the problems current AI can’t solve, like robotics, continuous learning, module reuse - the things needed to reach a general level of capabilities and for AI to do many but not all human jobs - are near future

    eh. this ties back to my opener - you’re still too convinced about something on essentially no grounded basis other than industry hype-optimism

    I can link deepmind papers with all of these, published in 2022 or 2023.

    look I don’t want to shock you but that’s basically what they get paid to do. and (perverse) incentives apply - of course goog isn’t just going to spend a couple decabillion then go “oh shit, hmm, we’ve reached the limits of what this can do. okay everyone, pack it in, we’re done with this one!”, they’re gonna keep trying to milk it to make some of those decabillions back. and there’s plenty of useful suckers out there

    And if AI can be general and control robots, and since making robots is a task human technicians and other workers can do, this does mean a form of Singularity is possible. Maybe not the breathless utopia by Ray Kurzweil but a fuckton of robots.

    okay this is a weird leap and it’s borderline LW shittery so I’m not going to spend much effort on it, but I’ll give you this

    it doesn’t fucking matter.

    even if we do somehow crack even the smallest bit of computational sentience, the plausibility of rapid acting self-reinforcing runaway self-improvement on such a thing is basically nil. we’re 3 years down the line on the Evergreen getting stuck in the suez and fabs shutting down (with downstream orders being cancelled) and as a result of it a number of chips are still effectively unobtanium (even if and when you have piles and piles of money to throw at the problem). multiple industries, worldwide, are all throwing fucking tons of money at the problem to try recover from the slightest little interruption in supply (and like, “slight”, it wasn’t even like fabs burned down or something, they just stopped shipping for a while)

    just think of the utter scope of doing robotics. first you have to solve a whole bunch of design shit (which by itself involves a lot of from-principles directed innovation and inspiration and shit). then you have to figure out how to build the thing in a lab. then you have to scale it? which involves ordering thousounds of parts and SKUs from hundred of vendors. then find somewhere/somehow to assemble it? and firmware and iteration and all that shit?

    this isn’t fucking age of ultron, and tony’s parking-space fab isn’t a real thing.

    this outcome just isn’t fucking likely on any nearby horizon imo

    So I was wondering what the people here generally think

    we generally think the people who believe this are unintentional suckers or wilful grifters. idk what else to tell you? thought that was pretty clear

    There are “boomer” forums I know of where they also generally deny AI is possible anytime soon, claim GPT-n is a stochastic parrot, and make fun of tech bros as being hypesters who collect 300k to edit javascript and drive Teslas*.

    wat

    I also have noticed that the whole rationalist schtick of “what is your probability” seems like asking for “joint probabilities”, aka smoke a joint and give a probability.

    okay this gave me a momentary chuckle, and made me remember JRPhttp://darklab.org/jrp.txt (which is a fun little shitpost to know about)

    from here, answering your questions as you asked them in order (and adding just my own detail in areas where others may not already have covered something)

    1. no, not a fuck, not even slightly. definitely not with the current set of bozos at the helm or techniques as the foundation or path to it.

    2. no, see above

    3. who gives a shit? but seriously, no, see above. even if it did, perverse incentives and economic pressures from sweeping hand motion all this other shit stands a very strong chance to completely fuck it all up 60 ways to sunday

    4. snore

    5. if any of this happens at some point at all, the first few generations of it will probably look the same as all other technology ever - a force-multiplier with humans in the loop, doing things and making shit. and whatever happens in that phase will set the one on whatever follows so I’m not even going to try predict that

    *“epistemic status”: I uh do work for a tech company, my job title is machine learning engineer, my girlfriend is much younger than me and sometimes fucks other dudes, and we have 2 Teslas…

    …okay? congrats? is that fulfilling for you? does it make you happy?

    not really sure why you mentioned the gf thing at all? there’s no social points to be won here

    closing thoughts: really weird post yo. like, “5 yud-steered squirrels in a trenchcoat” weird.

    • self@awful.systemsM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      look I don’t want to shock you but that’s basically what they get paid to do. and (perverse) incentives apply - of course goog isn’t just going to spend a couple decabillion then go “oh shit, hmm, we’ve reached the limits of what this can do. okay everyone, pack it in, we’re done with this one!”, they’re gonna keep trying to milk it to make some of those decabillions back. and there’s plenty of useful suckers out there

      a lot of corporations involved with AI are doing their damndest to damage our relationship with the scientific process by releasing as much fluff disguised as research as they can manage, and I really feel like it’s a trick they learned from watching cryptocurrency projects release an interminable amount of whitepapers (which, itself, damaged our relationship with and expectations from the engineering process)

      • Steve@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        As someone who went from high school directly into a publishing company as a “web designer” in 1998 I spent the next 20 years assuming that academic work was completely uninfluenced by commercial interests. HCI was academic, UX was commercial. Wasn’t till around 2019 that I started reading ACM papers about HCI from the 70s up. Fuck me was I surprised with how mixed up it all is. ACM interactions magazine published monthly case studies for Apple or did profiles on Jef Raskin talking about HCI for brand loyalty.

        Anyway. Point is a published paper doesn’t mean shit if you just read a few because an article pointed you to them. I don’t know. This thread sucks

        • TerribleMachines@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Preach, as someone inside academia, the bullcrap is real. I very rarely read a paper that hasn’t got a major stats issue—an academic paper is only worth something if you understand it enough to know how wrong it is or there’s plenty of replication/related work building on it, ideally both. (And it’s a technical field with an objective measure of truth but don’t let my colleagues in humanities hear me say that—its not that their work is worthless, its just its not reliable.)

      • froztbyte@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        “shitcoiners or oil companies… who wore it best?”

        but the rest of your reply reminds me that someone (I think steve or blake?) mentioned a thing here recently about a book on blaming guthenberg for this state of fucking everything up. I want to go read that, and I really need to get around to writing my rantpost about the “the problem of information transfer at scale is that scale is lossy, and this is why … [handwaves at many problems, examples continue]” thing that at least 8 friends of mine have had to put up with in DM over the last few years

      • BrickedKeyboard@awful.systemsOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        They also hyped autonomous cars and the Internet itself including streaming video for years before it was practical. Your filter of “it’s all hype” only works 99 percent of the time.

        • David Gerard@awful.systemsM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          autonomous cars aren’t

          look, there is no way on earth you didn’t lose a fortune in crypto last year

            • BrickedKeyboard@awful.systemsOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              This pattern shows up often when people are trying to criticize tesla or spaceX. And yeah, if you measure “current reality” vs “promises of their hype man/lead shitposter and internet troll”, absolutely. Tesla probably will never achieve full self driving using anything like their current approach. But if you compare Tesla “to other automakers, “to most automakers that ever existed””, or SpaceX to “any rocket company since 1970” there’s no comparison. If you’re going to compare the internet to pre-internet, compare it to BBS you would access via modem or fax machines or libraries. No comparison.

              Similarly you should compare GPT-4 and the next large model to be released, Gemini, vs all AI software for all time. It’s no comparison.

              • self@awful.systemsM
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                you keep falling into the exact same problem gambler defenses as those who have lost a lot of money on cryptocurrency, and are actively ignoring one of the foremost experts on cryptocurrency scams asking you if this is the case

                reading your responses in this thread (and somehow there’s more left, seriously, please lay off the adderall) it’s pretty obvious you’re not here for help — you are here to masturbate. you are in no position to reflect, you are here to flex your (frankly utterly mediocre) knowledge of AI grifts, because even though you are terrified of the system capitalism has built for you, your worldview does not allow you to not be the smartest person in the room, and so long as that’s the case no escape is possible.

                and with that, off you fuck

                • froztbyte@awful.systems
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  you are here to flex your (frankly utter mediocre) knowledge of AI grifts

                  you know, I was wondering how to put it, because the only thing I’d had so far was: “big ‘showing up to the gunfight with a sack of pebbles, a slingshot, and a plucky attitude’ energy”

    • BrickedKeyboard@awful.systemsOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Just I think to summarize your beliefs: rationalists are wrong about a lot of things and assholes. And also the singularity (which predates yuds existence) is not in fact possible by the mechanism I outlined.

      I think this is a big crux here. It’s one thing if its a cult around a false belief. It’s kind of a problem to sneer at a cult if the core S of it happens to be a true law of nature.

      Or an analogy. I think gpt-4 is like the data from the Chicago pile. That data was enough to convince the domain experts then a nuke was going to work to the point they didn’t test Fat Man, you believe not. Clearly machine generality is possible, clearly it can solve every problem you named including, with the help of humans, ordering every part off digikey and loading the pick and place and inspecting the boards and building the wire harnesses and so on.

      • froztbyte@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just I think to summarize your beliefs

        don’t be puttin’ words in my mouth yo

        rationalists

        this is a big set of very many people and lots of details

        are wrong about a lot of things

        many of them about many things, yes

        and assholes

        some, provably

        And also the singularity (which predates yuds existence) is not in fact possible by the mechanism I outlined

        whether it’s the wet dream of kurzweil or yud or whoever else, doesn’t matter? but as to the details… you’re engaging with this like the rats do (yes, told you, you only half escaped). you “set the example”, and then “test the details”

        just … don’t?

        the siren song of this is “okay what if I change the details of the experiment slightly?”

        we’ve had the trolley problem for ages, doesn’t mean it’s just “solved”. you won’t manage to “solve” whether the singularity can happen or not here, for the same reason

        • BrickedKeyboard@awful.systemsOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I wanted to know what you know and I don’t. If rationalists are all scammers and not genuinely trying to be, per the name ‘lesswrong’ in their view of reality, what’s your model of reality. What do you know? So far unfortunately I haven’t seen anything. Sneer club’s “reality model” seems to be “whatever the mainstream average person knows + 1 physicist”, and it exists to make fun of the mistakes of rationalists and I assume ignores any successes if there are any.

          Which is fine, I guess? Mainstream knowledge is probably usually correct. It’s just that I already know it, there’s nothing to be learned here.

              • self@awful.systemsM
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                it is interesting how after their temporary ban, their focus shifted to “all you can see is the mainstream” meshed with “the governments and stock markets of the world agree with me, like, in secret”, as if these weren’t conflicting ideas. this is tragically reminiscent of the thought processes of several conspiracy theorists I’ve known

                • froztbyte@awful.systems
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  and the sudden “I may be too autistic” drops were super wtf too

                  massive overall tone change without any revision of their position (even the barest acknowledgement of reflection was a “nuh-uh, still think I’m right” post)

            • BrickedKeyboard@awful.systemsOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              which is fine. the bigger topic is, could you leave a religion if the priest’s powers were real*, even if the organization itself was questionable?

              *real as in generally held to be real by all the major institutions in the world you are in. Most world governments and stock market investors are investing in AI, they believe they will get an ROI somehow.

          • froztbyte@awful.systems
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Okay I realize this esteemed po(a)ster already got shown the door but I happened to read this reply days ago and it kept bugging me

            On the face of it, “What you know and I don’t” was a weird phrase to pick, in context of their later claims of “I work in the industry [and thus I totes know things]”

            The thing that really bugs me about it is that it’s as though this person is (apparently? willingly? by choice? something?) incapable of (a certain class of[0]) subjective (value) judgements. And even as I type that out I realize that’s almost certainly a hallmark of these types (only uncertain because I’ve never had to spend thought on that previously).

            [0] - they’ll go with “cold hard fact” but only their[1] cold hard fact

            [1] - this I also want to rantpost on, but probably needs some prep to give it a full NSFW-worthy posting

          • earthquake@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Mainstream knowledge is probably usually correct. It’s just that I already know it

            Still reflecting on this incredible claim.

      • gerikson@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Or an analogy. I think gpt-4 is like the data from the Chicago pile. That data was enough to convince the domain experts then a nuke was going to work to the point they didn’t test Fat Man, you believe not.

        Are you mixing up Fat Man and Little Boy? Because Fat Man was an implosion-type bomb, just like the Trinity device. Little Boy was a gun-type. From vague memories of Rhode’s book, they wanted implosion types to maximize Pu weight to kiloton ratio, but it was much less straightforward than a gun-type bomb.

      • BernieDoesIt@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think gpt-4 is like the data from the Chicago pile. That data was enough to convince the domain experts then a nuke was going to work to the point they didn’t test Fat Man, you believe not.

        Whoa whoa whoa there! I’m the contrarian that thinks that gpt is clearly more that just plagiarizing things, but it’s still just a step above Mad Libs in terms of intelligence. It’s not clear that you could get it to be smarter than a goldfish, let alone a human being. It’s just really good at stringing words together in a way that sounds good.

    • BrickedKeyboard@awful.systemsOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      take some time and read this

      I read it. I appreciated the point that human perception of current AI performance can scam us, though this is nothing new. People were fooled by Eliza.

      It’s a weak argument though. For causing an AI singularity, functional intelligence is the relevant parameter. Functional intelligence just means “if the machine is given a task, what is the probability it completes the task successfully”. Theoretically an infinite chinese room can have functional intelligence (the machine just looks up the sequence of steps for any given task).

      People have benchmarked GPT-4 and it’s got general functional intelligence at tasks that can be done on a computer. You can also just go pay up $20 a month and try it. It’s below human level overall I think, but still surprisingly strong given it’s emergent behavior from computing tokens.