Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

John Carmack: The code for AGI could conceivably be written by one individual After stepping down as CTO of Meta’s Oculus VR, legendary programmer John Carmack was trying to decide if he would work on nuclear fission or artificial general intelligence (AGI). He ultimately chose AGI. “I think [fission]...

23,827 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Комментарии: 10

Фото профиля Robert
Robert4 месяцев назад

Any update? I think we need to start again and do RL from scratch, like AlphaGO

Фото профиля Magik Insight
Magik Insight4 месяцев назад

There is an approach before us that will yield AGI in 2026. Do live data capture of autonomous device data from the real word (cars, robots, humanoid robots, etc) in the field and use that live data to train up an AI compute model. It should be a large model like at least 300 MB up to one terabyte. Capture video and sound to get started, add in touch and taste later. Live training the model will bring about AGI by the end of 2026. I would start with a functional model trained on languages and use the simple LLM decoder design. Just keep training these parameters over time. The resulting model will be the best predictor of environmental behavior in the world, far surpassing humans.

Фото профиля Terminal Thoughts
Terminal Thoughts4 месяцев назад

agi before laundry

Фото профиля JuanLebedev
JuanLebedev4 месяцев назад

^^this...i've been referring clients to JC's hot take on AGI for the last few years... the moats of the model makers are being dramatically overestimated imho

Фото профиля daniel j blatecky
daniel j blatecky4 месяцев назад

Dan times out

Фото профиля Vikram M
Vikram M4 месяцев назад

The best founders don’t wait until they’re ready. They start, learn faster than everyone else, and improve with every iteration. That’s the real unfair advantage.

Фото профиля Ry Lanham
Ry Lanham4 месяцев назад

Sorry, but I think you mean fusion--not fission.

Фото профиля Eray Özkural, PhD - OG AI ⏭️🌟
Eray Özkural, PhD - OG AI ⏭️🌟4 месяцев назад

Well, John is right, I've already done that. But of course I won't be stopping there. ;)

Фото профиля 未知
未知3 месяцев назад

每次看到新模型发布,我就想:谁来写评测?

Фото профиля Migel Tissera
Migel Tissera4 месяцев назад

Me 🙋🏾‍♂️

Похожие видео

🚨 OBAMA RIPS THE "MARKET WILL TAKE CARE OF IT" APPROACH TO AI: "That’s not how we treat airlines, or drug companies, or food companies." Obama: "My view this week has been it is good that some of the leading companies have said we need to slow this down, and we should encourage that. There have been some on the left who’ve said we shouldn’t allow them to make that decision. I agree that that can’t be a long-term solution. Government has to be regulating this. I heard one of Donald Trump’s main advisers on this make the argument that the market will take care of it. These companies will solve the safety issues because they have every incentive to do so. If it turns out to be dangerous, people will just sue them. And they’re worried about financial liability. That’s not how we treat airlines, or drug companies, or food companies. We now have 150 years of experience just letting the market do whatever it wants when it comes to things that deeply affect our health and our safety. And so, there’s no replacement for an effective, government regulatory structure. And the challenge we have is that obviously, we have a president currently that has said that’s for losers. So, we’ve got a gap, at least of a couple of years, where things are moving really fast, and we have an administration that is not capable of or willing to, I would argue both, of putting together a serious regulatory framework, which is why I actually think we should be encouraging some sort of voluntary industry restraint, not because it’s a replacement, but because that may be the best we can do for now until we can get Congress and the White House to start getting serious about this."

MeidasTouch

54,729 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

🚨 OBAMA RIPS THE "MARKET WILL TAKE CARE OF IT" APPROACH TO AI: "That’s not how we treat airlines, or drug companies, or food companies." Obama: "My view this week has been it is good that some of the leading companies have said we need to slow this down, and we should encourage that. There have been some on the left who’ve said we shouldn’t allow them to make that decision. I agree that that can’t be a long-term solution. Government has to be regulating this. I heard one of Donald Trump’s main advisers on this make the argument that the market will take care of it. These companies will solve the safety issues because they have every incentive to do so. If it turns out to be dangerous, people will just sue them. And they’re worried about financial liability. That’s not how we treat airlines, or drug companies, or food companies. We now have 150 years of experience just letting the market do whatever it wants when it comes to things that deeply affect our health and our safety. And so, there’s no replacement for an effective, government regulatory structure. And the challenge we have is that obviously, we have a president currently that has said that’s for losers. So, we’ve got a gap, at least of a couple of years, where things are moving really fast, and we have an administration that is not capable of or willing to, I would argue both, of putting together a serious regulatory framework, which is why I actually think we should be encouraging some sort of voluntary industry restraint, not because it’s a replacement, but because that may be the best we can do for now until we can get Congress and the White House to start getting serious about this."

MeidasTouch

128,359 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

.Naval: Every human is a lottery ticket bet on the future of the species. One of the things that you really learn when you read David Deutsch’s theories and you authenticate them for yourself is you realize humans are universal explainers. That means everything that we know in the universe follows the laws of physics, and there’s no reason to believe otherwise. If you think otherwise, then please present your better theory that explains the world. If you can’t do that, then you have to go with the laws of physics. Well, the laws of physics are completely computable. They can fit inside a Turing machine or computer, and a computer can simulate the laws of physics with arbitrary accuracy, limited only by the specific power of that computer. If you increase the power of that computer, you can simulate them more accurately. So humans already simulate—in our minds we simulate—and through our computers we simulate the weather, we simulate quasars, we even simulate human systems. We simulate the economy. We simulate all kinds of things. So anything that can be understood, we can understand in our minds. This is something the AGI people get wrong when they talk about superintelligence. There is nothing out there that can understand something fundamentally that we can’t understand. It might be faster at it, it might have more compute, it might have more memory, but there’s no concept that it can understand that we can’t ourselves understand. So we are maximal universal explainers. That means every human is capable of unbounded creativity. Anyone could be the next Einstein or Fermi or Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos or Jonas Salk or whatever. So we can create anything. And if we can create anything, every human is a lottery ticket bet on the future of the species.

Arjun Khemani

33,110 просмотров • 1 год назад

.Naval: You define wealth in a beautiful way. You talk about wealth as a set of physical transformations that we can affect. So as a society it becomes very clear that knowledge leads directly to wealth creation for everybody. A given individual can obviously affect physical transformations proportional to the resources available to them—but much more proportional to the knowledge available to them. Knowledge is a huge force multiplier. You then define resources as the thing that you combine with knowledge to create wealth. New knowledge allows you to use new things as resources and discard old things that maybe we’re running out of. There are lots of examples of how we’ve done that in the past. For example, in energy we’ve gone from wood to coal to oil to nuclear. But then people say, “Now we’re out of ideas. Now we’re caught up. Now we’re done. There aren’t going to be new ideas, and now we have to freeze the frame and conserve what we have.” The counter to that is, “No, we’ll create new knowledge and have new resources. Don’t worry about the old ones.” Well they say, “If you’re going to have new resources, if you can’t think of them now, it’s not real.” This now gets into the realm of people demanding that if you’re going to claim that new knowledge will be created, you have to name that knowledge now. Otherwise it’s not real. But that seems like a Catch-22. David Deutsch: It does, and it’s a bad argument. I don’t want to claim that the knowledge will be created. We’re fallible; we may not create it. We may destroy ourselves. We may miss the solution that’s right under our nose, so that when the snailiens come from another galaxy and look at us, they’ll say, “How can it possibly be that they failed to do so-and-so when it was right in front of them?” That could happen. I can’t prove or argue that it won’t happen. What I always argue, though, is that we have what it takes. We have everything that it takes to achieve that. If we don’t, it’ll be because of bad choices we have made, not because of constraints imposed on us by the planet or the solar system. Naval: It will be by anti-rational memes that restrict the creation of knowledge and the growth of knowledge. David Deutsch: Maybe. Or maybe it’ll be by well-intentioned errors, which nobody could see why they were errors. Again, it doesn’t take malevolence to make mistakes. Mistakes are the normal condition of humans. All we can do is try to find them. Maybe not destroying the means of correcting errors is the heart of morality; because if there is no way of correcting errors, then sooner or later one of those will get us. Naval: Don’t destroy the means of error correction is the base of morality. I love that. I think about places like North Korea where you can’t have elections and a revolution is very difficult because the gang in charge is armed to the teeth and they’ve destroyed the means of political error correction for a long time. That is a case where humanity is trapped in a local minimum, and it’s very hard to climb out of that hole. If too much of the world falls into that mindset, then we as a species may just stagnate because we’ve lost our biggest advantage. We’ve lost our biggest discovery, which was the ability to make new discoveries.

Deutsch Explains

143,949 просмотров • 2 лет назад

.David Deutsch: "What's currently called AI and AGI are not only different from each other, they are very close to being the exact opposites of each other. The reason is that an AI, current AI is like an AI that diagnoses diseases or an AI that plays chess or an AI that controls a huge factory. Those things have objective functions, that is they have a function that they are designed to maximize and that is why they are used in those particular applications. Or in military terms, you could say the objective is to hit the target. You might say the objective is to hit the target unless some thing specified, but it's a specified thing comes up in which case don't hit the target and so on. This is, as I said, almost the opposite of what humans do when humans think. For a start, the AI has to be obedient, that is it has to actually do the things it is programmed to do, whereas a human is fundamentally disobedient, especially when being creative. When a human plays chess, they are performing a completely different kind of computation. They don't do the same things, they don't investigate the same possibilities that the artificial chess playing machine does, because the artificial one is capable of looking at billions and billions of possibilities, whereas the human can only look at hundreds or something. They are doing something completely different. Another difference is that the human can explain, can write a book later, having become world champion, can write a book saying how I did it, as the computer program that beats the world champion can write no such book, because it has no idea how it did it. It was just following a program. I was doing this and that and that and none of that is illuminating. Also, third thing, the chess player can decide I don't want to play chess anymore, from now on I will play Go or from now on I will play tennis. If commanded to play chess, the functionality will deteriorate completely. Those things are different. What we want in an AGI is that it behaves in a way that cannot be specified in advance, because if you specified it, you would already have the answer. The AGI program has to give unexpected answers, answers to questions we didn't even know how to ask."

Deutsch Explains

72,475 просмотров • 1 год назад