Well I wanted to see Marcus’s reaction because I mean if it really is just a matter of scale plus secret tweaks, then every fail case will fall, and I wanted to see how he internalizes that.
All of this (a) makes me more convinced that LeCun is right that GPT-4 is an off-ramp to AGI (his riff on hitting a wall?), and (b) it puts all of us in an extremely poor position to predict what GPT-4 consequences will be for society, if we have no idea of what is in the training set and no way of anticipating which problems it will work on and which it will not. One more giant step for hype, but not necessarily a giant step for science, AGI, or humanity.
WHAT? Literally it appears GPT-5 should be hitting “AI researcher” skill level, and −6 should hit “better than almost all AI researchers alive”. How is that not a vehicle heading directly for AGI at 300mph?
So what if −5 or −6 have problems. You can just recursion bootstrap to a better system.
The Gary Marcus of the world would have poo pooed steam engines because of their limitations like burning lots of coal and consuming water. You need to build imperfect systems to bootstrap to good ones.
This kind of thing has existed (for example optimal hardware layout) for decades. It sounds a lot less impressive when you sub out “AI” for “algorithm”.
“for certain aspects of computer science, computer scientists are already worse than even naive sorting algorithms”. Yes, we know that machines have a bunch of advantages over humans. Calculation speed and huge, perfect memory being the most notable.
Ok but how does this relate to your bet? I am claiming AI is very close to self improvement, a class of criticality. Note that for the purposes of progress/time, the case of :
AI researcher comes up with high level constraints for a search run and uses current gen AI to write the code for the bench. All the evaluations especially subjective ones (like “essay quality”) are done by AI. 99 percent of the steps for self improvement are done by AI.
AI does all self improvement steps by itself.
Are indistinguishable. (Humans are slow but compute at these scales is slower)
Well I wanted to see Marcus’s reaction because I mean if it really is just a matter of scale plus secret tweaks, then every fail case will fall, and I wanted to see how he internalizes that.
https://cacm.acm.org/blogs/blog-cacm/270970-gpt-4s-successes-and-gpt-4s-failures/fulltext
He says:
All of this (a) makes me more convinced that LeCun is right that GPT-4 is an off-ramp to AGI (his riff on hitting a wall?), and (b) it puts all of us in an extremely poor position to predict what GPT-4 consequences will be for society, if we have no idea of what is in the training set and no way of anticipating which problems it will work on and which it will not. One more giant step for hype, but not necessarily a giant step for science, AGI, or humanity.
WHAT? Literally it appears GPT-5 should be hitting “AI researcher” skill level, and −6 should hit “better than almost all AI researchers alive”. How is that not a vehicle heading directly for AGI at 300mph?
So what if −5 or −6 have problems. You can just recursion bootstrap to a better system.
The Gary Marcus of the world would have poo pooed steam engines because of their limitations like burning lots of coal and consuming water. You need to build imperfect systems to bootstrap to good ones.
Where on earth are you pulling those predictions about GPT-5 and 6 from? I’d take the other side of that bet.
From the progress. Note I am referring to finetuned systems who have had practice runs at actual AI design, they haven’t just read all the literature.
Note that for certain aspects of AI design, AI researchers are already worse than even simple RL algorithms.
see autoML, see https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.14838
If the finetuned systems aren’t built for some reason, the bet doesn’t resolve either way.
This kind of thing has existed (for example optimal hardware layout) for decades. It sounds a lot less impressive when you sub out “AI” for “algorithm”.
“for certain aspects of computer science, computer scientists are already worse than even naive sorting algorithms”. Yes, we know that machines have a bunch of advantages over humans. Calculation speed and huge, perfect memory being the most notable.
Ok but how does this relate to your bet? I am claiming AI is very close to self improvement, a class of criticality. Note that for the purposes of progress/time, the case of :
AI researcher comes up with high level constraints for a search run and uses current gen AI to write the code for the bench. All the evaluations especially subjective ones (like “essay quality”) are done by AI. 99 percent of the steps for self improvement are done by AI.
AI does all self improvement steps by itself.
Are indistinguishable. (Humans are slow but compute at these scales is slower)