swe, speculative investor
O O
Karma: 539
https://x.com/wtgowers/status/1816839783034843630
It wasn’t told what to prove. To get round that difficulty, it generated several hundred guesses (many of which were equivalent to each other). Then it ruled out lots of them by finding simple counterexamples, before ending up with a small shortlist that it then worked on.
That comment doesn’t seem to be correct.
I think a lot of it is simply just eating away at the margins of companies and product that might become larger in the future. Even if they are not direct competitors, it’s still tech investment money going away from their VR bets into AI. Also big companies fully controlling important tech products has proven to be a nuisance to Meta in the past.
I’m guessing many people assumed an IMO solver would be AGI. However this is actually a narrow math solver. But it’s probably useful on the road to AGI nonetheless.
I predict the move to Texas will be largely fake and just whining to get CA politicians to listen to his policy suggestions. They will still have a large office in California.
This is a reconstruction of Roman GDP per capita. Source of image. There is ~200 years of quick growth followed by a long and slow decline. I think it’s clear to me we could be in the year 26, extrapolating past trends without looking at the 2nd derivative. I can’t find a source of fertility rates, but child mortality rates were much higher then so the bar for fertility rates was also much higher.
For posterity, I’ll add Japan’s gdp per capita. Similar graphs exist for many of the other countries I mention. I think this is a better and more direct example anyways.
It is plausible that technological and political progress might get it to fulfilling all Sustainable Development Goal
This seems highly implausible to me. The technological progress and economic growth trend is really an illusion. We are already slowly trending in the wrong direction. The U.S. is an exception and all countries are headed towards Japan or Europe. Many of those countries have declined since 2010 or so.
If you plotted trends from the Roman Empire but ignored the same population decline/institutional decay from them we should have reached technological goals a long time ago.
It’s always hard to say whether this is an alignment or capabilities problem. It’s also too contrived too offer much signal.
The overall vibe is these LLMs grasp most of our values pretty well. They give common sense answers to most moral questions. You can see them grasp Chinese values pretty well too, so n=2. It’s hard to characterize this as mostly “terrible”.
This shouldn’t be too surprising in retrospect. Our values are simple for LLMs to learn. It’s not going to disassemble cows for atoms to end racism.There are edge cases where it’s too woke, but these got quickly fixed. I don’t expect them to ever pop up again.
much of what they say on matters of human values is actually pretty terrible
Really? I’m not aware of any examples of this.
TSMC has multiple fabs outside of Taiwan. It would be a setback but 10+ years seems to be misinformed. Also there would likely be more effort to restore the semi supply chain than post covid. (I could see the military try being mobilized to help or the Defense Production Act being used)
If OpenAI didn’t get the 30m from any other donor, they’d probably just turn into a capped profit earlier and raise money that way.
Also I never said Elon would have been the one to donate. They had 1B pledged, so they could have conceivably gotten that money from any other donors.
By the backing of Elon Musk, I mean the startup is associated with his brand. I’d imagine this would make raising funding easier.
It’s a lot for AI safety but for OpenAI at the time, with the backing of Elon Musk and the most respected AI researchers in the country, they could have raised a similar amount for series A funding at the time. (I’m unsure if they were a capped profit yet). Likewise, 1B was pledged to them at their founding, but it’s hard to tell how much was actually distributed out by 2017.
Agree with 2, but Safety research also seems hard to fund.
Shorting nvidia might be tricky. I’d short nvidia and long TSM or an index fund to be safe at some point. Maybe now? Typically the highest market cap stock has poor performance after it claims that spot.
I see Elon throwing money into this. He originally recruited Sutskever and he’s probably(?) smart enough to diversify his AGI bets.
Oh yeah I agree. Misread that. Still, maybe not so confident. Market leaders often don’t last. Competition always catches up.
OpenAI is closed
StabilityAI is unstable
SafeSI is …
I think a more nuanced take is there is a subset of generated outputs that are hard to verify. This subset is split into two camps, one where you are unsure of the outputs correctness (and thus can reject/ask for an explanation). This isn’t too risky. The other camp is ones where you are sure but in reality overlook something. That’s the risky one.
However at least my priors tell me that the latter is rare with a good reviewer. In a code review, if something is too hard to parse, a good reviewer will ask for an explanation or simplification. But bugs still slip by so it’s imperfect.
The next question is whether the bugs that slip by in the output will be catastrophic. I don’t think it dooms the generation + verification pipeline if the system is designed to be error tolerant.
I’m not that confident about how the Arizona fab is going. I’ve mostly heard second hand accounts.
So, from their site “TSMC Arizona’s first fab is on track to begin production leveraging 4nm technology in first half of 2025.” You are probably thinking of their other Arizona fabs. Those are indeed delayed. However, they cite “funding” as the issue.[1] Based on how quickly TSMC changed tune on delays once they got Chips funding, I think it’s largely artificial, and a means to extract CHIPS money.
I’m very confident that TSMC’s edge is more than cheap labor.
They have cumulative investments over the years, but based on accounts of Americans who have worked there, they don’t sound extremely advanced. Instead they sound very hard working, which gives them a strong ability to execute. Also, I still think these delays are somewhat artificial. There are natsec concerns for Taiwan to let TSMC diversify, and TSMC seems to think it can wring a lot of money out of the US by holding up construction. They are, after all, a monopoly.
Samsung will catch up, sure. But by the time they catch up to the TSMC’s 2024 state of the art, TSMC will have moved on to the next node.
...
it’s not feasible for any company to catch up with TSMC within the next 10 years, at least.Is Samsung 5 generations behind? I know that nanometers don’t really mean anything anymore, but TSMC and Samsung’s 4 nm don’t seem 10 years apart based on the tidbits I get online.
- ^
Liu said construction on the shell of the factory had begun, but the Taiwanese chipmaking titan needed to review “how much incentives … the US government can provide.”
- ^
There’s an API playground which is essentially a chat interface. It’s highly convenient.
This makes no sense. Wars are typically existential. In a hot war with another state, why would the government not use all of industrial capacity that is more useful to make weapons to make weapons. It’s well documented that governments can repurpose unnecessary parts of industry (say training Grok or an open source chatbot) into whatever else.
Biden used them for largely irrelevant reasons. This indicates that with an actual war, usage would be wider and more extensive.
This part seems to just be to not allow an LLM translation to get the problem slightly wrong and mess up the score as a result.
It would be a shame for your once a year attempt to have even a 2% chance of being messed up by an LLM hallucination.