This is an automated archive.
The original was posted on /r/singularity by /u/Xtianus21 on 2024-01-12 04:49:03+00:00.
Various people posted here about the recently posted episode of UNCONFUSE ME w/ Bill Gates. I gave it a watch and wow it is JAM packed with really insightful information.
Here's my breakdown of key parts that I thought were important. I had to take notes because there were so many things I wanted to refer to. Let's begin.
The SEEING Problem - Where is it all encoded (Interpretability):
Resolution is one of the most fascinating words in science. I always thought this in my scientific studies. As humans, our eyes are gifts from god yet they betray us so easily. We can't resolve 99.999999999% of anything in the known universe with our eyes alone; including things right in front of our faces. The issue boils down things that are either overly small, overly large, not in our view, not in our visual spectrum, not in any spectrum or not even real. These things can range from atomic atoms to elements, dark energy, gravity, time and existence itself, black holes, and the big bang.
As human beings we have known these things are there but we have had to work mightily hard to discover them and yield them into our human understanding and capabilities. Discovering the periodic table and all of the known elements are a great example of us knowing something can exist without actually finding it in existence. Our eyes may betray us on occasion but as human beings we have always found a way.
With that said, they discussed a core problem facing the magic of LLM's today. We don't actually know what is going on inside of the LLM to a degree of certainty that would be useful. Sam refers to this as an X-Ray inside. A way to know where and why a queried result is happening in a model.
Bill suggests that within 5 years this is something we should have a much better handle on than we do today.
Sam's response. 100%.
People may not realize but this may be the single greatest feature of how we can get to AGI and hell even ASI.
The NEXT 2 YEARS - Multi-Modality - It Has Begun:
Not much really to say here other than it has already begun with computer vision, audio, data, speech STT/TTS and video.
REASONING & RELIABILITY - The Most IMPORTANT Capability For 2024/2025:
Reasoning, reasoning, reasoning, reasoning reasoning. Yes, there are concerns about hallucinations, but I am far more excited about the potential for reasoning. What was interesting here is that Sam gave an odd admission that GPT-4 is not good at reasoning or rather it (GPT-4) "can only reason in extremely limited ways". Holy shit, if what is coming next is way beyond what is there today that is going to be really exciting/scary. I think the spookiest part about GPT-4 is how good it is at reasoning at all. The most interesting things I build are around the reasoning concept. If I can reason why you as a human do something well... I can emulate your task function.
However, what kind of reasoning is Sam talking about here? Is he referring to reasoning that goes beyond data the model was not trained on?? The appearance of reasoning is what GPT has now but it's so useful because in many business use cases that the type of reasoning you need. Meaning, most people don't go off and discover new cancer drugs every day sooo I get GPT-4 is not on that level of reasoning but what type of reasoning are you speaking of Sam?
Sam explains this in the 10,000 questions example. If I ask GPT something, i.e. What type of food is the best for staying healthy and maintaining good sleeping habits and maintaining homeostasis. Now, there is nothing difficult about that question. If you ran it through GPT-4 with 10,000 variations, you might end up with many different replies. While they may be very related to each other there may be times where certain important parts of the information is either missing, not correct or as quality as what some answers may have been over the course of analyzing 10,000 different queries and responses.
The reasons for this can be comprised of many different factors including simply subtle nuances of the model you're hitting at the time, is it december :D, and just the statistical nature of how the system works in general.
As the question becomes more complex you can imagine how this may be more of an issue and I can confirm yes it is. Sam says you'd want to get the best response out of 10,000 each time. This speaks right at the heart of the hallucination problem but also capability of reasoning itself. If you think about it this makes perfect sense. You could refer to this as confidence and for one I would like to see confidence scores in the responses as that would be a major help to signal on when building out automation systems. If you're not confident in the response or answer, perhaps I need to ask YOU for clarification. Humans can be a bit tricky to deal with sometimes.
As of now, there is no good way to know this from the model and would be a godsend if it were a feature they were able to execute. If I know you're not confident I can make design decisions around that.
But it is more interesting that GPT will have the ability to not just be confident but reason better about how it comes to its own answer. This will truly be an exciting leap forward if they can pull this off in a soon-to-be update.
HER & YOUR DATA - Doubling Down On Customizability:
This is really exciting because I feel very soon we are about to get HER. For those of you that don't remember that was the movie with Joaquin Phoenix and Scarlett Johansson's adaptation of a future period of time (we're almost here) where we can have an OS that is a personal AI.
Think of Her as a present day Google demo where you can watch what the future of today will soon be in a flawlessly executed system - that won't exist at first. lol. I don't know if that made sense but if you watched the Google Gemini demo you know what I mean. GPT-X's version of Her will be rolled out in iterations and the road may be a bit bumpy but gosh darn-it we are going to be there pretty damned soon. And I so want the Scarlett Johansson voice as my personal AI OS voice.
*****REASONING PART DEUX - Q*** - Adaptive Compute (THINK AGENTS):
Ok, Bill is not slick here. Bill and Sam played this one off like nobody would notice. BTW, they then go into the terminator scenario right after this precursor gem of a statement.
To me, this is where my ears perked up. Bill unassumingly suggests that right now we are in a feed-forward multiply system of get the next token BUT if we need to do something more complex like complex algorithms or mathematical computations we NEED SOMETHING ELSE. That something else as Sam suggest is an adaptive compute system. Now, i've talked a lot about this how or when or who controls this agent. I think that in a 1000 years from now, it will be the reverse. But for now, the route that will likely be pursued is the LLM's ability to call upon an agent to do a body of work. BTW, the reason why I like the reverse is because it's the actually thinking system ;). But in the interim I think this is predictably going to be the LLM calling upon the agent to act.
This surely represents a qualitative approach, as it involves having access to various resources such as algorithms for specific tasks, compute power, memory, etc.
In my opinion I think Sam is being COY here and that coyness I can't full gage but they (OAI) COULD already have that more sophisticated thing. At a minimum agents (adaptive compute) and we gotta get that to work, at a maximum WE may need much more sophisticated things beyond it.
Hmmm, at a minimum I am betting house you got that to work and I would also bet the house that you are doing other sophisticated things beyond it.
I'm not saying this in a vacuum either. I am pulling from all of the fever pitch discussion, which is now eons ago (3/4 months), where OAI was embroiled in the Q* what did you create controversy flying all over Twitter and reddit, namely this sub. They leaked that something of this nature was there. So, how today 12 hours ago, are you sitting with Bill Gates saying we "may need something more sophisticated" Nah you got it. lol I am believing that you guys know what you need and are building said thing. You've been working on it for months/years. The unassuming shy guy isn't working. You're getting close and this podcast is just proof of it.
SKYNET UNCONCERNED - Let US Accelerate BUT WE MAY NEED INTERNATIONAL WEAPONS INSPECTORS:
Ok, holy shit. This part of the conversation is just wild. We are doing everything to tell you (the government and politicians that this is a very serious thing). Sam gives out a doozy of a statement and I quote, "IF WE ARE RIGHT, [we may not be but pshhh yea right we are already here], BUT IF WE ARE RIGHT AND THIS TECH GOES AS FAR AS WE THINK IT'S GOING TO GO IT WILL IMPACT SOCIETY, GEOPOLITICAL BALANCE OF POWER, AND SO MANY THINGS WE WILL NEED AN SYSTEM LIKE THE IAEA. The IAEA is a global regulatory body of nuclear systems because they are so powerful and dangerous to all of mankind.
Now, to not fully scare th...
Content cut off. Read original on https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/194ml7t/deep_dive_of_episode_6_unconfuse_me_with_bill/
