Note: The video is no longer available. It has been set to private. It'll eventually be released on the main TED channel. This is a TED talk published early by a random TEDx channel. Tweet by EY: https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1655232464506466306 > Looks like my Sudden Unexpected TED Talk got posted early by...
YouTube description: > We wanted to do an episode on AI… and we went deep down the rabbit hole. As we went down, we discussed ChatGPT and the new generation of AI, digital superintelligence, the end of humanity, and if there’s anything we can do to survive. > > This...
Inspired by What's the Least Impressive Thing GPT-4 Won't be Able to Do What's the most impressive thing you can think of that you believe GPT-4 has around 5% chance of being capable of doing? (i.e. your belief that GPT-4 will have the capability to do this thing is around...
What do you mean when you say you're "willing to bet according to the Kelly Criterion"? If you're proposing a bet with 99% odds and your actual belief that you'll win the bet is also 99%, then the Kelly Criterion would advise against betting (since the EV of such a bet would be zero, i.e. merely neutral).
Perhaps you mean that the other person should come up with the odds, and then you'll determine your bet amount using the Kelly criterion, assuming a 99% probability of winning for yourself.
Yeah, based on EY's previous tweets regarding this, it seemed like it was supposed to be a TED talk.
Note: The video is no longer available. It has been set to private. It'll eventually be released on the main TED channel.
This is a TED talk published early by a random TEDx channel.
Tweet by EY: https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1655232464506466306
Looks like my Sudden Unexpected TED Talk got posted early by a TEDx account.
YouTube description:
... (read more)Eliezer Yudkowsky is a foundational thinker on the long-term future of artificial intelligence.
With more than 20 years of experience in the world of AI, Eliezer Yudkowsky is the founder and senior research fellow of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute, an organization dedicated to ensuring smarter-than-human AI has a positive impact on the world. His writings, both fiction and nonfiction, frequently warn of the
Example origin scenario of this Nash equilibrium from GPT-4:
In this hypothetical scenario, let's imagine that the prisoners are all part of a research experiment on group dynamics and cooperation. Prisoners come from different factions that have a history of rivalry and distrust.
Initially, each prisoner sets their dial to 30 degrees Celsius, creating a comfortable environment. However, due to the existing distrust and rivalry, some prisoners suspect that deviations from the norm—whether upward or downward—could be a secret signal from one faction to another, possibly indicating an alliance, a plan to escape, or a strategy to undermine the other factions.
To prevent any secret communication or perceived advantage, the prisoners agree that any deviation... (read more)
Hmm, I've not seen people refer to (ChatGPT + Code execution plugin) as an LLM. IMO, an LLM is supposed to be language model consisting of just a neural network with a large number of parameters.
I'm a bit confused about this post. Are you saying it is theoretically impossible to create an LLM that can do 3*3 matrix multiplication without using chain of thought? That seems false.
The amount of computation an LLM has done so far will be a function of both the size of the LLM (call it the s factor) and the number of tokens generate so far (n). Let's say matrix multiplication of n*n matrices requires cn^3 amount of computation (actually, there are more efficient algos, but it doesn't matter).
You can do this by either using a small LLM and n^3 tokens so that sn^3 > cn^3. Or you can use a bigger LLM,... (read 379 more words →)
I don't think GPT4 can be used with plugins in ChatGPT. It seems to be a different model, probably based on GPT3.5 (evidence: the color of the icon is green, not black; seems faster than GPT4; no limits or quota; no explicit mention of GPT4 anywhere in announcement).
So I think there's a good chance the title is wrong.
Additional comments on creative mode by Mikhail (from today):
https://twitter.com/MParakhin/status/1636350828431785984
We will {...increase the speed of creative mode...}, but it probably always be somewhat slower, by definition: it generates longer responses, has larger context.
https://twitter.com/MParakhin/status/1636352229627121665
Our current thinking is to keep maximum quality in Creative, which means slower speed.
https://twitter.com/MParakhin/status/1636356215771938817
Our current thinking about Bing Chat modes: Balanced: best for the most common tasks, like search, maximum speed Creative: whenever you need to generate new content, longer output, more expressive, slower Precise: most factual, minimizing conjectures
So creative mode definitely has larger context size, and might also be a larger model?
Based on Mikhail's Twitter comments, 'precise' and 'creative' don't seem to be too much more than simply the 'temperature' hyperparameter for sampling. 'Precise' would presumably correspond to very low, near-zero or zero, highly deterministic samples.
Nope, Mikhail has said the opposite: https://twitter.com/MParakhin/status/1630280976562819072
Nope, the temperature is (roughly) the same.
So I'd guess the main difference is in the prompt.
YouTube description:
We wanted to do an episode on AI… and we went deep down the rabbit hole. As we went down, we discussed ChatGPT and the new generation of AI, digital superintelligence, the end of humanity, and if there’s anything we can do to survive.
This conversation with Eliezer Yudkowsky sent us into an existential crisis, with the primary claim that we are on the cusp of developing AI that will destroy humanity.
Be warned before diving into this episode, dear listener. Once you dive in, there’s no going back.
Inspired by What's the Least Impressive Thing GPT-4 Won't be Able to Do
What's the most impressive thing you can think of that you believe GPT-4 has around 5% chance of being capable of doing? (i.e. your belief that GPT-4 will have the capability to do this thing is around 5%)
For this question, "impressive" should be interpreted to mean something different from "surprising". What I have in mind is "impressive" in the sense of "economically useful", "comparable to or better than human experts" or "jaw-droppingly creative", etc. For example, GPT-4 being able to reverse large text would be surprising but not impressive.
The reason I'm specifying a belief probability of 5% is that if... (read more)
But if that's the case, he could simply mention the amount he's willing to bet. The phrasing kinda suggested to me that he doesn't have all the info needed to do the Kelly calculation yet.