Submitted by googoobah t3_11cku2n in Futurology
Cryptizard t1_ja4wsim wrote
Reply to comment by greatdrams23 in So what should we do? by googoobah
You are trolling if you say you can't see the difference this time.
johnnymoha t1_ja4z0xk wrote
Seems arrogant to think you can see the difference this time.
Cryptizard t1_ja4zefv wrote
No, it's just uh... what is it called... objective reality? Maybe you should try it some time.
boersc t1_ja50jqu wrote
AI currently really isn't that much different from 30-40 years ago. Not really. Back then, they also did mass training of ai and also got it horribly wrong, for reasons difficult to explain. Ai identifying tanks based on whether the sun is shining or not, was a prime example back then.
It hasn't progressed that much beyond that, when you actually study it. Boston dynamics probably are most advanced nowadays and even those robots aren't really 'smart'. They can't do what they are not trained to do. Same with all the chatboxes nowaday. They can only combine and extrapolate that they have been taught. There is no original thought.
atleastimnotabanker t1_ja576s5 wrote
Boston Dynamics is specializing in robotics, there are different companies that are far more advanced when it comes to AI
hervalfreire t1_ja79j62 wrote
Machine Learning (“mass training”?) didn’t exist 40 years ago. Cases like the tank one you described used a completely different technique that didn’t utilize RNNs or the like. Other than hardware capabilities, there’s been a big number of breakthroughs in the past 2-3 decades or so, from LSTMs to diffusion models and LLMs. It’s 100% not even close to what we did back in the 90s…
Cryptizard t1_ja51wb0 wrote
No, lol, you are completely bullshitting here. It is extremely different, even compared to a few years ago. The advent of a transformer model literally changed everything. That's not to say that it is the only advancement, or even that it is ultimately the thing that will lead to AGI, but to claim that it is "not much different" is either uninformed or trolling.
johnnymoha t1_ja6m48v wrote
Sure random redditor. You've cracked the code. You're the smartest among us. Your reaction shows you're less concerned with objectivity than you think.
ianitic t1_ja5chec wrote
Most of the models are based on the same core algorithms from decades ago. The biggest improvements has been from moores law which will end in 2025 at current rates. Even without moores law ending, we are far away from an agi.
Cryptizard t1_ja5d7l8 wrote
You can say that, but it doesn't make it true. The algorithms are extremely different. The attention/transformer model is what made all of this recent progress possible.
ianitic t1_ja5fsnj wrote
So says you too. Transformers are marginal in the grand scheme of technological progress. If transformers were even 10x more efficient than CNNs or LSTMs, transformers would still be an improvement that came orders of magnitude slower than Moores law. CNNs/LSTMs being decades old.
There's a reason why all articles regarding a singularity uses Moore law as it's base, it's been the largest contributor to our increase in technological advancement over the years. That contributor is ending.
Cryptizard t1_ja5ipf2 wrote
>That contributor is ending.
Now its my turn to point out that they have been saying that since the 80s.
ianitic t1_ja5jy61 wrote
That's true, but it was always known to not a be forever thing and it has slowed down. I think I remember the last big milestone where they said that was die size of 45nm or so because of quantum tunneling. Thing is, there is a physical limit to how small we can make transistors.
Once we're dealing with transistors that are as thin as atoms, where do we go from there? Yes quantum computing, optical transistors, graphene, etc, exist, but do they provide a higher performance per dollar than silicon transistors? Probably not and it's all about price per performance.
Cryptizard t1_ja5mqse wrote
Nvidia seems to disagree with you. They think it is speeding up.
ianitic t1_ja5pfbj wrote
A CEO trying to sell their products says that their products are going to be even better in their future? They're trying to make Nvidia seem relevant and ease investor concerns with all the other big tech companies taking a hit recently.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments