Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

purple_hamster66 t1_itdtf1z wrote

Reply to comment by SoylentRox in Could AGI stop climate change? by Weeb_Geek_7779

I agree that robots building robots is the ultimate solution, but the question was about how to get to that point: the implementation is where we fail

1

SoylentRox t1_itf7zug wrote

I go over how to do that in my post. The rest is a lot of reinforcement learning.

2

purple_hamster66 t1_ith1bl8 wrote

Yes, but it’s some starter money that’s the Achilles Heel. It’s sounds to me like The Underpants Gnomes type of financing.

1

SoylentRox t1_ithqsxp wrote

? We don't have working AGI yet. But the funders of it have 250 billion+ in revenue.

There's no gnomes. It's:

(1) a megacorp like Google/Amazon/Facebook develop AGI

(2) the megacorp funds the massive amounts of inference accelerator hardware (the robots are the cheap part, the expensive part is the chips the AGI is using to think) to run many instances of the AGI software. (which is not singleton, there's many variants and versions)

(3) the megacorp makes a separate business division and spins it off as an external company for an IPO, such that the megacorp retains ownership but gets hundreds of billions of dollars from outside investors.

(4) outside investors aren't stupid. They can and will see immediately that the AGI will quickly ramp to near infinite money, and will price the security accordingly.

(5) with hundreds of billions of starter money, the AGI starts selling services to get even more money and building lots of robots, which ultimately will be used to make more robots and inference accelerator cards. Ergo exponential growth, ergo the singularity.

Frankly do you know anything of finance? This isn't complicated. For a real world example of this right now: see Waymo and Cruise. Both are preparing exactly this IPO for a lesser use of AI than AGI: autonomous cars.

1

purple_hamster66 t1_iti875p wrote

Are you really suggesting funding mechanisms before we even have an inkling of the tech? Extending your outrageous thinking, maybe AIs will get their own funding by manipulating markets, and won’t need humans for funding? :)

The tech:

  • I have not yet seen a Level 5 auto-driving car (in the wild, not in a constrained parking lot).
  • I used Dall-e (v1) and got 96% junk images. My 4-year-old neice draws better.
  • Almost no one bid on OpenAI, and the 1 bid they got was only $1B — not a lot of money for a tech you think is going to go exponential. Even at OpenAI, only 50% of workers think AGI is going to happen in the next 15 years, which is several lifetimes in terms of tech.
  • Amazon runs robots in their warehouses, but caused 14,000 serious injuries in 2019. 5 workers died in a single accident in 2022!

I feel you are putting the cart before the horse. Convince me otherwise, please.

1

SoylentRox t1_iti8nsc wrote

I am saying that if we have AGI like we have defined it, funding it is simple.

Also we know exactly how AGI will work as we nearly have it - pay attention to the papers.

The people building it have outright explained how it will work, just go read the GATO paper or Le Cun's.

These systems cannot manipulate markets.

1

purple_hamster66 t1_itic5f3 wrote

AI and ML have been in use on Wall Street at least since my colleague implemented it for a cluster there in 2015 for something called program trading, which chooses and trades stocks all on it’s own. It’s only gotten more predictive since, and they have billions to spend on it. They also use it in FinTech to predict actions trained from huge data Lakes, because it makes them money, and yes, it can drive funding decisions. It won’t be long until it decides to siphon money off to it’s collaborative AI accounts in other companies. Imagine finding out that a shell company is actually being run by an AI who makes better & faster decisions than any human could.

I’ll go read those papers now. Thanks for the hints.

1

SoylentRox t1_iticdbm wrote

The GATO paper is one yeah.

HFT isn't the same kind of AI and there is a problem with training them to manipulate markets as the behavior is too complex to simulate.

1

purple_hamster66 t1_itiimg4 wrote

They don’t simulate the entire market, just individual stocks and their derivatives. But this was 7 years ago and that was just a starting point that they upgrade every 6 months, sooo…. 14 generations ago.

1

SoylentRox t1_itls3hm wrote

There are again problems with this that limit how far you can get. Market is zero sum. Ultimately creating your own company or buying one and producing real value may pay more than manipulating the market.

1