Technology

What I would have never have guessed. I'm shocked I say. /s

I'm pretty sure this sort of thing was tried with the prior era of neural nets too. When the field hits a ceiling they grasp at the make-AI-teach-itself straw. It's the Hail Mary pass. What if we keep stacking AIs on top of each other. Maybe they'll somehow break out of their own limitations.

There's a cadence. Once in a while a breakthrough happens. The tech is incorporated into the world. There are variations of the tech, but all have the same fundamental ceiling.

The AI Effect takes place. People forget about AI for a while. Time passes. A breakthrough paper is published. AI is upon the world once again.

Only this time with LLMs, it's seemingly passed the Turing Test so people think it's close to the fictional AGI. Not just recognizing handwriting, speech, or images. Or putting an annoying animated character on your desktop. This time it's being freakishly good at predicting what the next words should be based on known sum total of human knowledge. Making it be creative isn't it this time. That's the ceiling.

not a reflection on the quality of OP's submission, but man... like every day now I wish we had an active "noshitsherlock" sub for headlines like these

Turing Test is fundamentally based on fooling humans. Not sure it's smart to pin humankind's future on what a birthday magician can do.

Lol what? Of course it won't, If the AI slop ends with recursive edits it's just going to cause degradation and collapse. I swear techbros have reality confused with their favorite fantasy fiction books.

EDIT: To demonstrate, 90% accuracy of 90% is 81%. Even the best most specific models on earth are not capable of self improvement because they will never reach much less exceed their training data's capability even if the largest most perfect dataset existed. They might think that by simply adding more layers of machines running in parallel and killing off models which underperform creating a system similar to evolutionary adaptation that it might eventually reach that 91%, but our current approach and level of technology have never demonstrated that capability not even theoretically.

found that AI agents could solve the engineering problems necessary to do AI research but lacked the judgment and creativity to produce original research at the caliber of papers accepted by a top machine-learning conference.

I mean that describes a majority of engineers. No small feat

The fingerprinting they're doing now is meant to help with this. If they see a fingerprint, it was probably not human generated so don't ingest it.

I think people made some crazy magical assumptions about AI based on scifi that doesn't apply to real life. Real things to consider and prepare for, but not likely.

Recursive exponential self improvement? Just because something knows how to code doesnt mean it can make the best ultimate next version of itself. Even physical evolution takes millions of years, and it creates mistakes and has setbacks.

We might be seeing logarithmic AI improvement today, like evolution hitting a hill that it can't cross. We might need trillions more gigabytes of clean training data that isn't LLM generated to hit the next level, and it might not even be worth it.

I think what the AI developers are doing by constantly promoting ai fear is linking the idea of exponential ai self improvement to it, because their biggest fear right now might be investors realizing that isn't real, and every dollar they invest is getting less and less back.

Won't come at all. It's mathematically impossible.

Everything is false until it's true? There's governments and corporations around the world right now racing to make that happen. What's the point of the article? If it was so easy it would have been delivered already

A year ago they were similarly bad at writing code, often created unit tests that tested nothing, etc.

If the models are trained in what they're doing wrong, that can accelerate their progress toward doing it right.