I dont think anything qualifies you to claim you've invented a god-technology that will cure all diseases with no added labor costs - something that has never happened before. But even if I did, that qualification wouldn't be part of an undergraduate biology education.
I'm genuinely trying to understand the argument you're making here. What sort of "credentials" entitle a person to claim their god-technology will cure all diseases within the year 2026?
It smells to me like "might be an even bigger optimist than I am" means you're also part of the rationalism cult and that it's literally impossible for you to say something negative about Amodei.
You have come up against a fundamental problem with capitalist private property, to which there is no solution no matter how clever. In this case they would just point the lobbyists towards their family members.
You cannot solve the problem in this way unless you're willing to restrict people's property right to "give away" money; and even then it's likely the ultra-rich will find a loop hole given they can pay teams of lawyers indefinite full time salaries to do so.
You need to attack the source of elite power, not play the game it designed. You need to tax wealth itself, regardless of who holds it. You can't "keep money out of politics" in a system premised on money's right to do whatever it wants. People act like we can just post about repeal Citizens United and it will happen, like they don't live in a world that went from no Citizens United to Citizens United because of a powerful force called capital, to which they have no answer.
Wealth is the distribution of wealth. By which I mean, having wealth allows for getting more wealth, once you have enough.
An investor can have their investments grow so quickly that they can never spend it. They only pay taxes on what they take out and spend. But, again, they will never spend most of it.
You mean the logical conclusion of effective altruistic? Or perhaps the obvious subtext of effective altruistic? I'm honestly surprised that these people only got more emboldened after SBF went down.
Surprisingly, or unsurprisingly if you've ever actually worked/met/lived with these people, Rationalism is not rational and Effective Altruism is not altruistic. It is effective though at providing a framework for immoral and self-serving behaviors.
You can't. It's AI booster propaganda. Yann LeCun obviously understands transformers better than random anons on this venture capital fan forum. This means he also understands their limitations, which is too complex for people who just want their preferred billionaire to win.
> "I take an object, I put it on the table, and I push the table... there's no text in the world, I believe, that explains this... your GPT-5000, or whatever it is, it's never gonna learn about this."
Lex fridman podcast 2022
ChatGPT answers this just fine.
He also said they will be “ Writing aids, not much more" and they “Can't plan.”
No one said hes an idiot. He was just clearly wrong about LLM capabilities.
>> "I take an object, I put it on the table, and I push the table... there's no text in the world, I believe, that explains this... your GPT-5000, or whatever it is, it's never gonna learn about this."
As far as I know, those things are still true. Unless there is text in the training material that the text in the prompt can map to, or there is text in training material that describe how to map text in the prompt to text in the training material, LLMs cannot process the prompt.
So may be he is wrong about what could be in the training material. But I don't think he is wrong in the fundamental..
This is sort of what I mention in my original comment. These claims, when pushed, turns out not to hold water...
Yann is smart but obviously not omniscient, I don't think it does the ML community a service to pretend that elders are never incorrect (or even badly incorrect). This type of thing is how we got the cult around Schmidhubering.
Weights aren't really software though? Any more than a png is software. And God knows you can put things in a png that are not covered by the first amendment.
Encryption algorithms require substitution-boxes or other data for the algorithm to work correctly. Changing the data separately from the algorithm fundamentally alters the correctness of the algorithm.
LLM algorithms also require model data for the algorithm to work correctly. Similar to cryptography, changing the data separately from the algorithm fundamentally alters the correctness of the algorithm.
This precedent has already been perfectly established thanks to Phil Zimmermann and Daniel J. Bernstein.
And if there was any doubt, look at the difference in their stock price for the prior year when they were "calling for regulation" vs now that there's an actual chance they get regulation by someone they don't control.
This take is widespread on this venture capital fan forum, but it's both incorrect and a retreat. The Cybertruck was poorly thought out, sold teribly, and is now dead. By example it has discouraged future diversity in automotive design.
Good design that breaks the mold and then succeeds for that reason is what changes the world. Bad design that starts from the desire to be different without understanding the forces that led to the preexisting equilibrium is what we got. If you start out with hundreds of billions of dollars you can fake it for much longer, but if your premise is fundamentally economically incorrect then it will only last as long as you can subsidize it.
It is impossible for someone's statement of preference to be incorrect. You may differ in your opinion, but the gp is not wrong for having their own opinion.
I read their comment as meaning, "If you really care about design that doesn't look like anything else, you should be wary of the Cybertruck, as its commercial failure actually discourages future innovation in automobile design."
They weren't stating their preference for the form of the vehicle itself. They were stating their preference for designs that break the mold. But if what you desire is cars that break the mold, the Cybertruck has set the world back.
Not sure why you didn't get more engagement, this is the best take in this thread. LLMs are super impressive, but they differ qualitatively from biological intelligence in ways that make it unlikely for them to replace human labor in places where true human adaptability (and not just language generation) is required.
I wonder if there are any modern languages that would be particularly interesting to make specific hardware for.
The only example I know of is the one that runs Java bytecode.
Add Forth to your list. There's 1 or 2 CPU's out there that came with a Forth engine in hardware (iirc). And there's some chips heavily optimized to run Forth systems (see eg. GreenArrays GA144. Sadly seems to be defunct these days?).
As for your original question: you might want to have a look at languages that overlap the border between 'traditional' PLs, and hardware description languages. Or hardware/software co-design, and tools used in that field. Edit: also see Oberon.
> The only example I know of is the one that runs Java bytecode
reply