Top
Best
New

Posted by yurivish 3 hours ago

AI is dramatically accelerating AI research(www.planned-obsolescence.org)
157 points | 112 commentspage 2
ionwake 1 hour ago|
what if the greatest threat is simply there will be hedonistic experiences so great most humans will find them irresistible to the point of shorter lives.

Could be from a sandwich that tastes like the best sandwich ever, but is super bad for your cholesterol or something.

I dont know where Im going with this.

Actually did some research I think the term is "Wireheading" from a story/theory from the 50s

arthurbrown 32 minutes ago||
We have addictive and harmful drugs. Heroin, meth, cigarettes
ImaCake 1 hour ago||
This is already true? Ultra processed foods and tiktok are both deleterious and both wildly successful. Maybe what you are concerned with is a theoretical sandwich that was unfailingly addictive so that no one could escape its effects.
fooker 1 hour ago||
AI is dramatically accelerating any research that has objective goals where you can not shift goalposts.
Tanjreeve 20 minutes ago|
This seems kind of aggrandizing when BigAI shifts goalposts constantly whether it's "we created AGI" by a definition that an autopilot in a commercial plane fulfills or "Maths research" where everyone else has to do the actual research.
megadragon9 2 hours ago||
i'm also wondering whether there are confounding factors like more domain experts and talents joining the AI research field because there are more interesting problems to be solved (or other 2nd order effects of AI models being more powerful).
ilaksh 52 minutes ago||
I am very pro-AI, and interested in accelerating AI research, but the idea of deliberately creating a _runaway_ effect seems profoundly stupid and ignorant.

I suspect that part of the reason some people are hoping for that to happen is that they thoroughly mix up AGI and ASI. We do not need some kind of omnipotent god-like super intelligence in order to get much greater than human level capabilities. We are actually almost there in a lot of ways. In some aspects like speed and breadth of knowledge, very superhuman.

What I think is going to happen is that within a few years, maybe 18 months to 5 years, the new materials and compute-in-memory research is going to land in data centers at scale.

That is going to be 10-50+ larger models, 10-50+ faster, much smarter than humans. 50+ less electricity usage.

At some point, it is going to be obvious to people that if we want to maintain control of planet earth then we need to maintain control of AI research to some degree.

Assuming that superintelligence will be benevolent and just.. going for it to me is something that might earn the human species a Darwin award.

inshard 1 hour ago||
Same author from 2023: https://www.planned-obsolescence.org/p/ais-accelerating-ai-r...
jryan49 1 minute ago|
I'm so tired of these articles. They are basically fortune telling with graphs.
mlmonkey 2 hours ago||
Another data point: look at the number of submissions to Neurips, ICLR, etc. Now, I agree that a submission does not by itself imply groundbreaking resesarch, but the fact that people are able to try out/vet ideas much faster now makes a difference.

In my own work, I've found that it's much faster to brainstorm with a frontier model like Opus. I'll have an idea and be able to get a working implementation and try it out on toy problems within O(minutes), instead of O(weeks) earlier.

usernametaken29 2 hours ago||
Trying out problems and making tangible progress towards AGI are entirely different categories. Likewise what’s changed in terms of paper submissions is also the amount of slop. Most reviewers say that they haven’t seen a lot more papers that are good but rather they’ve seen a lot more papers and almost all of them are terrible slop that’s desk rejected. This is happening in OSS too where a lot of projects are closing the gate at the onslaught of terrible contributions.
jimbokun 2 hours ago||
> Trying out problems and making tangible progress towards AGI are entirely different categories.

They seem very strongly related to me.

porridgeraisin 1 hour ago|||
I agree in general that AI accelerates AI research, but good lord neurips iclr papers (and reviews might I add...) are the worst example of that. It's all complete slop that is totally meaningless.

A lot of great papers by great people had a lot of AI involved and accelerating it of course, but the majority is meaningless (sometimes autoresearch) slop.

Specifically talking about recent neurips/iclr.

bee_rider 1 hour ago||
In October/September my LinkedIn wall was probably… 55% people complaining that they were getting garbage AI submissions to the conferences they review for, and 35% people complaining that they got garbage AI reviews back from their conference submission… Of course, I have no idea if that means anything given how aggressively that site bubbles your feed.
lifeisloving 1 hour ago||
Why do we still listen to METR??

These people are literally just a public relations operation for the big AI labs. I equate them more with a lobbying firm than I do a research firm.

azan_ 1 hour ago|
Turns out that METR, the PR operation for big AI labs is better at predicting AI capabilities than AI skeptics.
hoppp 1 hour ago||
I like the article except the fear mongering about extinction is not very professional.

Opus 5.5 is so amazing I'm not surprised if it can improve itself.

usernametaken29 2 hours ago||
The very same report also found that AI could not be deployed outside of a narrow domain of verifiable rewards … so take it with grains, or mountains of salt. It’s also extremely unclear how the productivity measures are calculated. They surely don’t seem to translate into economic output. Antrophic has seen its valuation corrected by 50% and possibly more… so yeah. This all sounds very fishy.
strongwaddle 2 hours ago|
As long as we believe, we can imagine it is true. All seeing Oracle: how do you command me? Praise his name, bringer of many miracles - he who definitely can't be manipulated from the backend to provide biased information that suites a person's malicious purpose. Ya totally.
More comments...