xamdam

Because that's where countries go to die?

GPT cannot currently do this (for long documents), and you have a commonly requested use case. For now you can charge as much as they do and have a decent business I'm guessing, but future depends on LLMs from OpenAI and other getting into this space.

I would also like to see controllable length output if that's feasible with your model.

I'd pay for an API to this

Impressed with their long document summarization, any ideas how they do this? Seems beyond normal GPT limitations; either they have a more powerful model (doubt it) or hacked around the limitations?

e.g. good summary for a very long text https://labs.kagi.com/ai/sum?url=http://localroger.com/prime...

there's important professional mentoring which addresses people/org/mgmt problems, I suspect there might be other good resources on higher-level software eng skills (architecture, refactoring, code organization) - appreciate if someone wants to share some!

I love apple products but I hate this stuff. They're cynically kneecapping competition and hurting consumer choice, like they're not rich enough already. Would class action be a to do thing here?

lisp

This is amazing and inspirational engineering.

Can they scale this up to taking humans & large payloads to orbit? It seems hard to run this business sustainably on millionaire tourists, 4-minute science experiments and ads. Anyone have an idea of what their business plan is?

Is it known to be particularly good?

Relevant post about GPT2: https://srconstantin.wordpress.com/2019/02/25/humans-who-are...

Curious what your source for "make the cut" is. I have my own interpretation, but would like to see the original.

Yeah, just noticed. Posted this (even earlier) on Reddit ML it didn't get as much interest

Oh-oh, no linkifying in text submissions, well here we go:

OCW link: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mathematics/18-065-matrix-method... YouTube playlist:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUl4u3cNGP63oMNUHXqIU...

Book link:

https://amzn.to/2WecEkk

a) Not sure if MIRI is a spiritual parent of OpenAI. It's a different approach to the problem, and I'm not sure MIRI would spawn OpenAI if they had the resources.

b) Also, unfair to MIRI. They are not only researching the area but also creating it. A lot of early work want into socializing AI risk as an idea, and in that sense pretty much every future effort in this area owes to them. I've given noticeable dollars to MIRI and pretty satisfied with ROI (of course always room for improvement), would do it again.

According to Schelling's model even slight preference to be with your own color leads to segregation http://nifty.stanford.edu/2014/mccown-schelling-model-segreg...

yes this is lame (but I understand 75TB is not ok). go tell @onedrive on twitter

Top words for Seinfeld are things you can't say on TV. Data broken?

ELI5: until we flew next to Pluto this month all we had is blurry 16-pixel images. How can we get such precise data on something millions of times further?

Interesting, but would this do any better than using real crime data, such as geolocated data police departments have already?

Not even out of the gate and already reaching for an ad-hominem. You must be fun at parties.

I think you misunderstood; I did not mean you're an average researcher - I have no idea - but unless you hang our with hotshots at AI/ML conferences (which is a bit of a club) you're hanging out with average researchers.

I would expect to get this kind of impression from an average researcher, because that's what average researchers do (even at AI conferences). What do the top researchers think? Google paid 10M per head for DeepMind guys, explicitly working on AGI. Top researchers at FB works on specifing "Artificial tasks for artificial intelligence" (http://www.iclr.cc/doku.php?id=iclr2015:main#antoine_bordes), basically a better Turing metric. Schmidhuber, one of the original Deep Learning folks, http://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/ has always been very open about pursuing AGI. There is a lot of work on combining graphical models with logic, for example Pedro Domingos' work, the goal is clearly machine reasoning.

Also, I'm sympathetic to Roberto's point about how the brain works; I definitely agree that there is no magic; it might just be a few stupid mathematical tricks layered all the way down.

Yes, absolutely there is a reason for concern. I now volunteer for FLI (the organization Musk funded; we deal with both AI and other x-risks, synthetic bio etc). From a somewhat insider view I think there is a lot we can do, and time might be on our side (AGI is a pretty hard problem). I'm cautiously optimistic that we (rational and altruistic humans) can make a difference.

The default outcomes are bad; Culture would be pretty great by comparison.

Worst-case scenarios are not likely for the same reasons best ones aren't - the default is AI indifference (they use you for atoms)

Since you mentioned worst, this is a must-read-classic :) http://hermiene.net/short-stories/i_have_no_mouth.html

In the 1930s Ernest Rutherford (1871–1937) repeatedly suggested, sometimes angrily, that the possibility of harnessing atomic energy was "moonshine".

The examples you mention are of things actually likely never achievable, while there is an existence proof of intelligent machines walking around everywhere.

You're underestimating the field. The goal was always intelligence, and many leading researchers are pretty openly aiming for that. Stupid Mathematical Tricks are components of intelligence, and while it's true SVM with a cool new kernel is not going to take over the world, good prediction ability is something you can build on (as for example deep nets do to some extent). In the limit people should be thinking of implications of intelligent machines, not Stupid Mathematical Tricks. Whether it's an important topic at this point in the fields development is a debatable topic; timelines differ drastically among top researchers.

I largely agree with you (have been supporting intelligence.org before the topic was cool) but I think if we don't achieve human-friendly AI it's on us; a real failure rather than just succumbing to circumstances (like getting blown away by a supernova). Right now we have control and we can release AGI only if we have very high confidence that it aligns well with human value. The analogy that is somewhat relevant is that basic drives can be controlled even if AI's intellectual power leaves us in the dust, like we know that most normal humans will care about their children (and senile parents) despite being cognitively superior. We have to fight denial (many AI researchers are IMO engaged in it) apathy and fatalism, and in the end with patience we can have something great.

thanks for doing my job for me :)

- Highly doubt it's purely a money decision

- Vapnik is joining a number of people he previously worked with

- Getting huge computational resources and seeing your ideas applied to real data is rewarding

Love the idea - thought of it 7+ years ago! Hope you guys succeed.

Clever