Ramez Naam gives a skeptic’s take on Recursive Self-Improvement.
12 comments
It's like for a real explosion you need a lot of energetic stuff, say methane and oxygen, mixed up and ready to go bang. Instead we are burning all the gas as it comes out of the stove.
Considering how calorically efficient the human brain is when it comes to the breadth and depth of general problems it can solve, I don't feel like LLM software improvements have hit a theoretical limit yet.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier–Stokes_existence_and_sm...
“The first statement (A), which is known as the "smoothness" problem, states that there should always exist smooth and globally defined solutions to the Navier–Stokes equations in three-dimensional space. The second statement (C), known as the "breakdown" problem, states that there should be at least one set of initial conditions and external forces for which there are no smooth solutions to the Navier–Stokes equations.“
Edit: Though I notice now the OpenAI blogpost does claim to solve the “smoothness and existence problem”, so maybe there’s simply terminology differences here. I’ll note many mathematicians such as Dennis Sullivan suggest part (A) is the more important part.
Read the full thread on Hacker News →
Related stories
- Where's the "Intelligence Explosion"?noahpinion.blogHacker News · 4 points · 1 day ago
- Hacker News · 1 points · 3 days ago
- Hacker News · 1 points · 2 days ago
- Hacker News · 1 points · 2 days ago
- The Verge · 0 points · 9 days ago
- AI godfathers warn of runaway 'intelligence explosion'theguardian.comHacker News · 3 points · 2 days ago