Consider how this year alone we basically had Dall-E, Imagen, Stable Fusion, Midjourney, Lambda, early Imagen Video samples and now ChatGPT, and the years not even over yet. Original Dall-E was almost 2 years ago, GPT-2 was 3 years ago.
Consider how this year alone we basically had Dall-E, Imagen, Stable Fusion, Midjourney, Lambda, early Imagen Video samples and now ChatGPT, and the years not even over yet. Original Dall-E was almost 2 years ago, GPT-2 was 3 years ago.
The growth of the the technology hasn't been exponential, it seems to grow under a diminishing marginal returns law, that is, the first 90% was "easy" to solve, but every bit of the remaining 10% seems increasingly and excruciatingly harder. If you're observing local behavior in the first 90% of the curve it might look like it could explode any time but unbeknownst to you, the behavior towards infinite is a actually a constant ceiling.
I'm not categorically denying it's exponential, I'm just saying it's very difficult to make assumptions based on observed local behavior.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/olivercameron_speaking-of-ai-...
Taking Advent of Code as an example, GPT seems to be making mince meat of some problems, but it struggles with others.
Is it not conceivable that in software there will be a "last 10%" where AI will trip up, either because the inputs (prompts/requirements) are hard to express or parse, or the output (code) is hard to generate?
There will certainly be areas where such bottlenecks exist, and so we can assume that there will be types of problems we can't expect exponential improvement to continue once it hits those bottlenecks. But the point is that self-driving is a poor example to use to judge what we can expect to see in fields that are less constrained by turnaround times and safety. Not least because "anyone" - though certainly constrained by costs - can try to do novel things with large language models. Very few can try to do novel things with self-driving because they have nothing realistic to test it on at scale.
This is just someone scaring you with math by pretending inconvenient details like entropy don't exist.
This is the same as the response to people who bash economists for thinking “growth will go on forever.” Of course that can’t happen, but where is the top? Earth? Solar system? Galaxy? Parallel dimensions? Miniaturization and dematerialization causing extreme decoupling of economy from resource use? Nobody knows. The S curve could plateau in 10 years or 10,000 years.
Some systems behave differently in a state of constant growth and in a resource limited state.
It’s basically Thanos’s manifesto.
Turns out they not only dream but they do it better than us! Maybe we can also rethink our then correct assumptions about the singularity
I'm trying to think of what this author here envisions happening because an AI writes a story about doing bad things. Very good stories about human extinction have existed for a long time and have not resulted in actual human extinction. When I think of texts that seem associated with significant world historical changes, like the New Testament, Magna Carta, Declaration of Independence, it seems there was quite a bit of event context that was important, and it wasn't the sheer quality of the text itself that impacted history.
Similarly with art. Is Videogen-4 going to be able to create a synthetic sequence of image frames with an audio track that is "exponentially" better than Casablanca? What would that even mean? The quality of art is completely subjective. There is no quantifiable measure like transistor density that can get X times improvement. No film has the power to cause human extinction and neither do great filmmakers.
Man I cannot wait to feed a novel into an AI and get a comic book version output.