| It was really quick. I stumbled across a comment from KConrad on MathOverflow on how useless AI was for research. That comment was from 2024. When it disproved the unit distance conjecture in May, the solution involved a breath of knowledge of the literature that it made sense it took a computer to make the connection. It only took 5 months for it to advance to the point that it was better than humans at almost everything. Even if you expected it, the mind boggles at how fast it was. Also, it's impossible to really know how you're going to react to something until it happens to you. When ChatGPT came out, I already thought "in the long run they're going to automate almost everything humans love to do". Despite having 4 years to brood about it, I did not really know what it would feel like until it happened to me directly. |
| |
| ▲ | pixl97 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I like to call it the great incoherence. Even before LLMs it was feeling like the design of society wasn't really for people any longer, instead it's more and more designed for corporations and their convenience. In the US at least. Same with how the internet has stopped most people with socializing the same way they did in the past. Now we have a new layer that will be optimized for these digital entities. We see it in writing all over the internet. There will be tons of other places they show up and doing things that don't make sense to us. | |
| ▲ | globnomulous 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don't see how this is possible. There are constraints on the speed at which information can move and the number of steps required to compete a given task. The improvement cannot continue, let alone accelerate, indefinitely without bounds. | | |
| ▲ | qarl 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | OK - sure. Probably. But it can continue to inconceivable levels before it gets to that point. | | |
| ▲ | globnomulous 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Okay, how can we be certain even about that? It sounds just as plausible to me that the improvements will become asymptotic and boring, not exponential or inconceivable -- and how can we make any confident prediction at all about the heights these models will reach? The technology those heights require doesn't exist, and its existence isn't guaranteed, even if it is possible. | | |
| ▲ | qarl 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > how can we be certain Certain of predictions? I think that's an unreasonable ask. And I'm comfortable with my prediction. Rather than argue about it - let's wait a year and see what happens, and then we can discuss it. | | |
| ▲ | globnomulous 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > I think that's an unreasonable ask. Oh, good point! I misread your comment. Sorry for that! > Rather than argue about it - let's wait a year and see what happens, and then we can discuss it. Deal! |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | QuesnayJr 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think what makes it hard is that it's quick, but not sudden. I understand constant-rate improvement. I understand what it's like to be in a car crash. What I can't understand, emotionally, is the constant acceleration. Even now, if I look at an OpenAI solution in isolation, I can understand the big picture, so if things froze where they are I could adjust. Intellectually I know I'm not going to get that chance, but emotionally I don't. |
|
