This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The only real sign we're near the end-zone is when we can ask a model how to make a better model, and get useful feedback which makes a model which can give us more and better advice.
I certainly foresee plenty of disruption when we reach the point of being willing to replace people with AI instances on a mass level, but until the tool allows for iterative improvement, it's not near the scary speculation levels.
The problem of improving AI is a problem which has seen an immense investment of human intelligence over the last decade on all sides.
On the algorithmic side, AI companies pay big bucks to employ the smartest humans they can find to squeeze out any improvement.
On the chip side, the demand for floating point processing has inflated the market cap of Nvidia by a factor of about 300, making it the second most valuable company in the world.
On the chip fab side, companies like TSMC are likewise spending hundreds of billions to reach the next tech level.
Now, AI can do many tasks which previously you would have paid humans perhaps 10$ or 100$ to do. "Write an homework article on Oliver Cromwell." -- "Read through that thesis and mark any grammatical errors."
However, it is not clear that the task of further improving AI can be split into any amount of separate 100$ tasks, or that a human-built version of AI will ever be so good that it can replace a researcher earning a few 100k$ a year.
This is not to say that it won't happen or won't lead to the singularity and/or doom, perhaps the next order of magnitude of neurons will be where the runaway process starts, but then again, it could just fizzle out.
More options
Context Copy link
Altman saying "Maybe Not" to an employee who said they will ask the model to recursively improve itself next year. https://x.com/AISafetyMemes/status/1870490131553194340
More options
Context Copy link
You already can. Chatgpt says:
Increase Model Depth/Width: Add more layers or neurons to increase the capacity of your neural network.
Improve the Dataset
Computational Resources
Use Better Hardware: Train on GPUs or TPUs for faster and more efficient computations.
There really isn't much secret sauce to AI, it is just more data, more neurons.
Presumably this meant "the sort of useful feedback that a smart human could not already give you".
Claude can give useful feedback on how to extend and debug vllm, which is an llm inference tool (and cheaper inference means cheaper training on generated outputs).
The existential question is not whether recursive self improvement is possible (it is), it's what the shape of the curve is. If it takes an exponential increase in input resources to get a linear increase in capabilities, as has so far been the case, we're ... not necessarily fine, misuse is still a thing, but not completely hosed_ in the way Yud's original foom model implies.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link