My guess is that he’s referring to the fact that Blackwell offers much larger world sizes than Hopper and this makes LLM training/inference more efficient. Semianalysis has argued something similar here: https://semianalysis.com/2024/12/25/nvidias-christmas-present-gb300-b300-reasoning-inference-amazon-memory-supply-chain
anaguma
Karma: 130
No, at some point you “jump all the way” to AGI, i.e. AI systems that can do any length of task as well as professional humans -- 10 years, 100 years, 1000 years, etc.
Isn’t the quadratic cost of context length a constraint here? Naively you’d expect that acting coherently over 100 years would require 10x the context, and therefore 100x the compute/memory, than 10 years.
I would guess that the reason it hasn’t devolved into full neuralese is because there is a KL divergence penalty, similar to how RHLF works.
I gave the model both the PGN and the FEN on every move with this in mind. Why do you think conditioning on high level games would help? I can see why for the base models, but I expect that the RLHFed models would try to play the moves which maximize their chances of winning, with or without such prompting.
Do you know if there are scaling laws for DLGNs?
“Let’s play a game of chess. I’ll be white, you will be black. On each move, I’ll provide you my move, and the board state in FEN and PGN notation. Respond with only your move.”
GPT 4.5 is a very tricky model to play chess against. It tricked me in the opening and was much better, then I managed to recover and reach a winning endgame. And then it tried to trick me again by suggesting illegal moves which would lead to it being winning again!
How large of an advantage do you think OA gets relative to its competitors from Stargate?
This is interesting. Can you say more about these experiments?
How does Anthropic and XAi’s compute compare over this period?
Could you say more about how you think S-risks could arise from the first attractor state?
An LLM trained with a sufficient amount of RL maybe could learn to compress its thoughts into more efficient representations than english text, which seems consistent with the statement. I’m not sure if this is possible in practice; I’ve asked here if anyone knows of public examples.
Makes sense. Perhaps we’ll know more when o3 is released. If the model doesn’t offer a summary of CoT it makes neuralese more likely.
I’ve often heard it said that doing RL on chain of thought will lead to ‘neuralese’ (e.g. most recently in Ryan Greenblatt’s excellent post on the scheming). This seems important for alignment. Does anyone know of public examples of models developing or being trained to use neuralese?
(Based on public knowledge, it seems plausible (perhaps 25% likely) that o3 uses neuralese which could put it in this category.)
What public knowledge has led you to this estimate?
I was able to replicate this result. Given other impressive results of o1, I wonder if the model is intentionally sandbagging? If it’s trained to maximize human feedback, this might be an optimal strategy when playing zero sum games.
> I was grateful for the experiences and the details of how he prepares for conversations and framing AI that he imparted on me.
I’m curious, what was his strategy for preparing for these discussions? What did he discuss?
> This updated how I perceive the “show down” focused crowd
possible typo?
Also, I think under-elicitation is a current problem causing erroneously low results (false negatives) on dangerous capabilities evals. Seeing more robust elicitation (including fine-tuning!!) would make me more confident about the results of evals.
I’m confused about how to think about this. Are there any evals where fine-tuning on a sufficient amount of data wouldn’t saturate the eval? E.g. if there’s an eval measuring knowledge of virology, then I would predict that fine-tuning on 1B tokens of the relevant virology papers would lead to a large increase in performance. This might be true even if the 1B tokens were already in the pretraining dataset, because in some sense it’s the most recent data that the model has seen.
I think there’s an irrelevant link in the last bullet point.