This is a special post for quick takes by Cole Wyeth. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.
Cole Wyeth's Shortform
13Cole Wyeth
7Noosphere89
2cubefox
8Cole Wyeth
8Cole Wyeth
12habryka
1Cole Wyeth
6Vladimir_Nesov
3core_admiral
4Vladimir_Nesov
3nc
3eigen
1Cole Wyeth
2cubefox
1Cole Wyeth
1Cole Wyeth
5Cole Wyeth
5Cole Wyeth
3Cole Wyeth
3Cole Wyeth
1Cole Wyeth
1Cole Wyeth
5Seth Herd
3gwern
2Hastings
1Cole Wyeth
Mathematics students are often annoyed that they have to worry about "bizarre or unnatural" counterexamples when proving things. For instance, differentiable functions without continuous derivative are pretty weird. Particularly engineers tend to protest that these things will never occur in practice, because they don't show up physically. But these adversarial examples show up constantly in the practice of mathematics - when I am trying to prove (or calculate) something difficult, I will try to cram the situation into a shape that fits one of the theorems in my toolbox, and if those tools don't naturally apply I'll construct all kinds of bizarre situations along the way while changing perspective. In other words, bizarre adversarial examples are common in intermediate calculations - that's why you can't just safely forget about them when proving theorems. Your logic has to be totally sound as a matter of abstraction or interface design - otherwise someone will misuse it.
While I think the reaction against pathological examples can definitely make sense, and in particular there is a bad habit of some people to overfocus on pathological examples, I do think mathematics is quite different from other fields in that you want to prove that a property holds for all objects with a certain property, or prove that there exists an object with a certain property, and in these cases you can't ignore the pathological examples, because they can provide you with either solutions to your problem, or show why your approach can't work.
This is why I didn't exactly like Dalcy's point 3 here:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/GG2NFdgtxxjEssyiE/dalcy-s-shortform#qp2zv9FrkaSdnG6XQ
There is also the reverse case, where it is often common practice in math or logic to ignore bizarre and unnatural counterexamples. For example, first-order Peano arithmetic is often identified with Peano arithmetic in general, even though the first order theory allows the existence of highly "unnatural" numbers which are certainly not natural numbers, which are the subject of Peano arithmetic.
Another example is the power set axiom in set theory. It is usually assumed to imply the existence of the power set of each infinite set. But the axiom only implies that the existence of such power sets is possible, i.e. that they can exist (in some models), not that they exist full stop. In general, non-categorical theories are often tacitly assumed to talk about some intuitive standard model, even though the axioms don't specify it.
Eliezer talks about both cases in his Highly Advanced Epistemology 101 for Beginners sequence.
Perhaps LLM's are starting to approach the intelligence of today's average human: capable of only limited original thought, unable to select and autonomously pursue a nontrivial coherent goal across time, learned almost everything they know from reading the internet ;)
7This doesn't seem to be reflected in the general opinion here, but it seems to me that LLM's are plateauing and possibly have already plateaued a year or so ago. Scores on various metrics continue to go up, but this tends to provide weak evidence because they're heavily gained and sometimes leak into the training data. Still, those numbers overall would tend to update me towards short timelines, even with their unreliability taken into account - however, this is outweighed by my personal experience with LLM's. I just don't find them useful for practically anything. I have a pretty consistently correct model of the problems they will be able to help me with and it's not a lot - maybe a broad introduction to a library I'm not familiar with or detecting simple bugs. That model has worked for a year or two without expanding the set much. Also, I don't see any applications to anything economically productive except for fluffy chatbot apps.
Huh o1 and the latest Claude were quite huge advances to me. Basically within the last year LLMs for coding went to "occasionally helpful, maybe like a 5-10% productivity improvement" to "my job now is basically to instruct LLMs to do things, depending on the task a 30% to 2x productivity improvement".
I'm in Canada so can't access the latest Claude, so my experience with these things does tend to be a couple months out of date. But I'm not really impressed with models spitting out slightly wrong code that tells me what functions to call. I think this is essentially a more useful search engine.
I'm in Canada so can't access the latest Claude
Use Chatbot Arena, both versions of Claude 3.5 Sonnet are accessible in Direct Chat (third tab). There's even o1-preview in Battle Mode (first tab), you just need to keep asking the question until you get o1-preview. In general Battle Mode (for a fixed question you keep asking for multiple rounds) is a great tool for developing intuition about model capabilities, since it also hides the model name from you while you are evaluating the response.
Just an FYI unrelated to the discussion - all versions of Claude are available in Canada through Anthropic, you don't even need third party services like Poe anymore.
Source: https://www.anthropic.com/news/introducing-claude-to-canada
Base model scale has only increased maybe 3-5x in the last 2 years, from 2e25 FLOPs (original GPT-4) up to maybe 1e26 FLOPs[1]. So I think to a significant extent the experiment of further scaling hasn't been run, and the 100K H100s clusters that have just started training new models in the last few months promise another 3-5x increase in scale, to 2e26-6e26 FLOPs.
possibly have already plateaued a year or so ago
Right, the metrics don't quite capture how smart a model is, and the models haven't been getting much smarter for a while now. But it might be simply because they weren't scaled much further (compared to original GPT-4) in all this time. We'll see in the next few months as the labs deploy the models trained on 100K H100s (and whatever systems Google has).
This is 3 months on 30K H100s, $140 million at $2 per H100-hour, which is plausible, but not rumored about specific models. Llama-3-405B is 4e25 FLOPs, but not MoE. Could well be that 6e25 FLOPs is the most anyone trained for with models deployed so far. ↩︎
I've noticed they perform much better on graduate-level ecology/evolution questions (in a qualitative sense - they provide answers that are more 'full' as well as technically accurate). I think translating that into a "usefulness" metric is always going to be difficult though.
The last few weeks I felt the opposite of this. I kind of go back and forth on thinking they are plateauing and then I get surprised with the new Sonnet version or o1-preview. I also experiment with my own prompting a lot.
I've noticed occasional surprises in that direction, but none of them seem to shake out into utility for me.
I've been waiting to say this until OpenAI's next larger model dropped, but this has now failed to happen for so long that it's become it's own update, and I'd like to state my prediction before it becomes obvious.
Most ordinary people don't know that no one understands how neural networks work (or even that modern "Generative A.I." is based on neural networks). This might be an underrated message since the inferential distance here is surprisingly high.
It's hard to explain the more sophisticated models that we often use to argue that human dis-empowerment is the default outcome but perhaps much better leveraged to explain these three points:
1) No one knows how A.I models / LLMs / neural nets work (with some explanation of how this is conceptually possible).
2) We don't know how smart they will get how soon.
3) We can't control what they'll do once they're smarter than us.
At least under my state of knowledge, this is also a particularly honest messaging strategy, because it emphasizes the fundamental ignorance of A.I. researchers.
"Optimization power" is not a scalar multiplying the "objective" vector. There are different types. It's not enough to say that evolution has had longer to optimize things but humans are now "better" optimizers: Evolution invented birds and humans invented planes, evolution invented mitochondria and humans invented batteries. In no case is one really better than the other - they're radically different sorts of things.
Evolution optimizes things in a massively parallel way, so that they're robustly good at lots of different selectively relevant things at once, and has been doing this for a very long time so that inconceivably many tiny lessons are baked in a little bit. Humans work differently - we try to figure out what works for explainable, preferably provable reasons. We also blindly twiddle parameters a bit, but we can only keep so many parameters in mind at once and compare so many metrics - humanity has a larger working memory than individual humans, but the human innovation engine is still driven by linguistic theories, expressed in countable languages. There must be a thousand deep mathematical truths that evolution is already taking advantage of to optimize its DNA repair algorithms, or design wings to work very well under both ordinary and rare turbulent conditions, or minimize/maximize surface tensions of fluids, or invent really excellent neural circuits - without ever actually finding the elaborate proofs. Solving for exact closed form solutions is often incredibly hard, even when the problem can be well-specified, but natural selection doesn't care. It will find what works locally, regardless of logical depth. It might take humans thousands of years to work some of these details out on paper. But once we've worked something out, we can deliberately scale it further and avoid local minima. This distinction in strategies of evolution v.s. humans rhymes with wisdom v.s. intelligence - though in this usage intelligence includes all the insight, except insofar as evolution located and acts through us. As a sidebar, I think some humans prefer an intuitive strategy that is more analogous to evolution's in effect (but not implementation).
So what about when humans turn to building a mind? Perhaps a mind is by its nature something that needs to be robust, optimized in lots of little nearly inexplicable ways for arcane reasons to deal with edge cases. After all, isn't a mind exactly that which provides an organism/robot/agent with the ability to adapt flexibly to new situations? A plane might be faster than a bird, throwing more power at the basic aerodynamics, but it is not as flexible - can we scale some basic principles to beat out brains with the raw force of massive energy expenditure? Or is intelligence inherently about flexibility, and impossible to brute force in that way? Certainly it's not logically inconsistent to imagine that flexibility itself has a simple underlying rule - as a potential existence proof, the mechanics of evolutionary selection are at least superficially simple, though we can't literally replicate it without a fast world-simulator, which would be rather complicated. And maybe evolution is not a flexible thing, but only a designer of flexible things. So neither conclusion seems like a clear winner a priori.
The empirical answers so far seem to complicate the story. Attempts to build a "glass box" intelligence out of pure math (logic or probability) have so far not succeeded, though they have provided useful tools and techniques (like statistics) that avoid the fallacies and biases of human minds. But we've built a simple outer loop optimization target called "next token prediction" and thrown raw compute at it, and managed to optimize black box "minds" in a new way (called gradient descent by backpropogation). Perhaps the process we've capture is a little more like evolution, designing lots of little tricks that work for inscrutable reasons. And perhaps it will work, woe unto us, who have understood almost nothing from it!
I'm starting a google group for anyone who wants to see occasional updates on my Sherlockian Abduction Master List. It occurred to me that anyone interested in the project would currently have to check the list to see any new observational cues (infrequently) added - also some people outside of lesswrong are interested.
A "Christmas edition" of the new book on AIXI is freely available in pdf form at http://www.hutter1.net/publ/uaibook2.pdf
So is the fascination with applying math to complex real-world problems (like alignment) when the necessary assumptions don't really fit the real-world problem.
Beauty of notation is an optimization target and so should fail as a metric, but especially compared to other optimization targets I’ve pushed on, in my experience it seems to hold up. The exceptions appear to be string theory and category theory and two failures in a field the size of math is not so bad.
I wonder if it’s true that around the age of 30 women typically start to find babies cute and consequently want children, and if so is this cultural or evolutionary? It’s sort of against my (mesoptimization) intuitions for evolution to act on such high-level planning (it seems that finding babies cute can only lead to reproductive behavior through pretty conscious intermediary planning stages). Relatedly, I wonder if men typically have a basic urge to father children, beyond immediate sexual attraction?