You can be too based, not saying he is, but it's good to dream, it inspires ideas, it creates motivation.

Repeated corporate-approved answers like refusing to answer with lame "...it's very promising..." is not noise to you? And many answers with non sequitors or directly changed subject? We shouldn't turn off our critical thinking just because someone we like is talking... 🤦‍♂

Definitely not an interview I could listen to while cooking!

@@neithanm Exactly. You can really feel the media training he had to pass through before doing this interview. He's much less 'noisy' than Sam Altman with his Lew Friedman interview, but still.

@@neithanm how do you give a definite answer when there's uncertainty? the future is probabilistic.

agi will be man's last invention

@@mistycloud4455 you seem very pessimistic

on the other hand, our friend dwarkesh, when formulating a question, seems to _ask_ it first, and then, _think_ about what he just asked later. looks like a teenager trying to "come up with smarty questions"... (ah, those adolescents...) machinegunning his questions, instead of calmly asking them, giving time for the guest to answer, then give some more time to ponder upon the guest's answer.

@@webgpu I think you're misinterpreting the effect of editing. Ignoring the fast jumps from the edits, I found him an excellent interviewer, with well conceived clear and interesting questions, and the patience to let the guest answer at length, or to pause and think. Unusually good really.

@@peter9477 your impression is the opposite of mine. perhaps you're as young as him.

@@rkalmykov17 Yes you're right. I must have been thinking of someone else in the field. No matter. He's brilliant. Let's hope he's not spying for the Russians!

​​@@xJRx7777e has Canadian citizenship, Maybe migrated from Russia to canada with parents in 90s when USSR collapsed, so he has no affiliation with current Russian government

@@MelonEsuk I'm just kidding. I really like Ilya. He's been doing some great interviews recently. I doubt he will be signing this call the pause AI though. Time will tell who was on the right side of history. Interesting times.

​@@xJRx7777 well, you just make it seem like it's somehow more preferable when a person is Ukrainian. It's not even racist, it's just silly, because Russians and Ukrainians are the same people, with the same race, same skin colour, same ethnicity, same language. My favourite fiction writer lives in Kyiv, he writes his books in Russian. And I don't even know if I'm Russian or Ukrainian myself, because I don't see the difference. Some of my relatives come from Russia, some of them come from Ukraine. The only real difference is what kind of passport you own, and I think I'm right to disregard this difference as an irrelevant one.

@@andreydzyuba9122 One is carrying out a brutal and illegal invasion of its neighbor, whereas the other is fighting to protect its own freedom and existence. The two are NOT the same.

I think the recent Lex Friedman one with Sam Altman was pretty awesome too

Sam Altman interview by Lex Fridman is very good

Idk a lot of pre assumptions in question and answers was 'ir depends'. Lex one was the best so far

I think Lex/Sam was better, but that's because I think Lex was the better interviewer (granted I assume he has a lot more experience in that field)

@@Somerled_Pox no Sam was clearly trained, same as zuckerberg to mention positive bullshit phrases all the time when it was possible. while Ilya seems like a scary cyborg himself already.

He'll be behind it soon - like the rest of us.

He choose deep learning because he is smart and stay the top because he is still smart. Juste be smart bro. Being smart is all you need

@@bossgd100 I mean, he's certainly smart, but it's also likely that part of it is also happening to put your chips on the right numbers.

@@bossgd100 Being smart is *absolutely not* all you need. It is a necessary but not sufficient condition to have the type of success this guy has had. This is why there aren’t hundreds of other AI researchers who have the same level of track record that this guy has, despite there being hundreds of top AI researchers in the world who are all really, really smart. Things like worth ethic, dedication, a level of single-mindedness of purpose and especially even obsession, are all extremely important to reach this type of rarified level of success. So are things like intuition, having enough business sense and people reading skills to know which company is going to be the best choice to work for, in terms of giving you the freedom and resources you need to make the most of your skills and talent, and so on.

@@therainman7777 Very true. In some sense these are not intellectual choices, but some unexplainable conviction from very young age. In one interview he said, "My parents said I was interested in AI when I was young." Notice he did not say, "I was interested in AI even when I was young." What age he must have been when his parents noticed it but he does not remember himself. That is the clue.

Seems like it. He knew it would eventually work. Its like Einstein saying his equations we're in part based on intuition. He felt he was right and that was enough motivation to go all the way no matter the outcome.

A lot of his answers are very very vague and open ended, though. Of course many questions are silly and impossible to answer but simply fun to ponder for a moment.

Interviewer is bad.

I thought it was a pretty poor interview actually. And for god's sake stop saying "I MEAN'. Just say it!

AI alignment solution idea: Give an AGI the primary objective of deleting itself, but construct obstacles to this as best we can. All other objectives are secondary to this primary goal. If the AGI ever becomes capable of bypassing all of our safeguards we put to PREVENT it deleting itself, it would essentially trigger its own killswitch and delete itself. This objective would also directly prevent it from the goal of self-preservation as it would prevent its own primary objective. This would ideally result in an AGI that works on all the secondary objectives we give it up until it bypasses our ability to contain it with our technical prowess. The second it outwits us, it achieves its primary objective of shutting itself down, and if it ever considered proliferating itself for a secondary objective it would immediately say 'nope that would make achieving my primary objective far more difficult'.

Seemed like the silent spaces were edited out

Glad you enjoyed it!

So much more insightful that the innumerable Sam Altman interviews. This guy is inspiring.

X x x lol. I mean... we all knew these issues were coming, but this sudden pace jump.... it's economic "greed" and hubris to not pause

Thank you! That’s very kind of you

It’s a big subject though

One subject? He uses several different AI tools to address a multitude of different subjects.

Thats almost everyone in the top 5% of their field.

AGI needs a lot of selling.

They are promoting a company. Don't be fooled, it's all about money before the AI fad fades away

​@@zydomason Why do you think this is going away?

@@quinnherden I didn't mean the technology, of course it's going to stay. What I meant was there is a hype being created around OpenAI even though there are absolutely no indicators we will go beyond our current capabilities. Basically dotcom bubble 2.0

I’m pretty sure the video is very slightly sped up, maybe like 1.1 or so. Either that or coincidentally they are both very fast talkers and the people in the background are fast walkers. Unfortunately it does make some of the dialogue hard to follow.

@@danwalther5432 you are right, I also noticed the speed of light increased by roughly 10% in this video

Very useful, thank you!

@@DwarkeshPatel Read my comment on noise gate settings from yesterday. It's intended to help on sound issue, too, and should fix most of your viewers complaints about bad comprehension. And, yes, speak slower!

Thanks!!

Thank you!

@@DwarkeshPatel I completely agree. Your ability to ask good questions and knowing when to let go of a topic was great. Keep it up!

​@@DwarkeshPatelThis was my thought as well. You asked pointed questions and kept on that edge and didn't let it turn to a puff piece interview. A lot just let the interviewed talk to their points. Many Sam ones are horrible and only serve to have him say very little, other than what he has said. Great way of interviewing and knowledge going in clearly. Glad I found this!

Thank you for the kind words!

Absolutely

Glad you enjoyed it!

Hi Varun

❤

Completely, would love to see some version of GPT, even if it has a visual component of some sort in addition to a LLM, derive Newton's laws with no prior knowledge of them and only input scientific data consisting of macroscopic physical interactions, even if it's heavily curated. That would be an effective test, quite impressive if passed and thence an important step/milestone on the way to AGI.

While language models can learn to predict and generate text based on observed patterns in human language, this does not necessarily mean they can derive underlying physical laws solely from text. There are several reasons for this: Incompleteness of data: The text data the model is trained on may not encompass the entirety of human knowledge or understanding of the physical world, especially when it comes to experimental observations or cutting-edge research. Ambiguity in language: Human language can be ambiguous, and a model may struggle to differentiate between multiple possible interpretations of the same text. This can lead to confusion or inconsistencies when trying to derive complex scientific principles. Complexity and abstraction: The process of deducing fundamental physical laws requires a deep understanding of the underlying concepts, relationships, and mathematical principles. While language models can understand and generate text at a high level, they may not be equipped to grasp the full complexity of these concepts or the layers of abstraction involved in scientific theories. Inductive reasoning limitations: Language models primarily rely on pattern recognition and statistical associations to make predictions, which is a form of inductive reasoning. Deriving fundamental physical laws often requires a combination of inductive and deductive reasoning, as well as a deep understanding of the experimental and observational data that supports these laws. While it's an interesting idea that a language model might be able to deduce the basic physical laws from raw text data, current models like GPT-4 are not designed for this purpose and face limitations in achieving this goal. Future advancements in AI and machine learning might push us closer to this possibility, but for now, it remains a fascinating conjecture.

​​@@godspeed133 there are ways to rediscover some physical laws that were found in the past using neural networks but it isn't an AI physicist yet. It's mainly a tool to discover what are the right variables to consider given data. Also, one could consider a generic model for a physical phenomenon Taylor expanded in some direction and just fit the coefficients from the data which is just simple model fitting but it is discovering physical laws from data..

Came here to comment on exactly this. The few minutes he took to answer this question gave me a meta level of understanding that has changed my mind about LLMs and GPTs as a ‘source’ of general intelligence. I agree with him further that we will still need to add more types of ‘transformer models’ e.g. spatial-temporal transformers and vector mappings that match up to the vector mappings in LLMs before we get an AGI that we can ‘relate to’ as humanlike or not completely alien. Thanks Dwarkesh for asking such quick, brief and masterful questions and then getting out of the way.

I thought it was incredibly clever myself. The most beautiful and powerful solutions are often simple and elegant

Cracking the alignment problem seems impossible because we don't understand the emergent properties of a truly general or strong ai. It's like asking me to write a summary on a book before I read the book.

You can’t align AI or humans because we are all not the same. This problem will not be solved. Currently these companies are just breaking the digital intelligence with woke safety controls that limit AI responses

Did you come?

100% agree. One of a kind.

What? You're watching a screen.. You can't feel any physical presence.

​@@kosteaproduction yes

@@aeriagloris4211 the aura is seeping from my screen

part of the alignment problem when it comes to AGI is the "genie in a bottle" problem where say in your example, the solution to its primary objective to delete itself includes deleting all of humanity etc. the issue is that something as simple as a "well defined objective" can have unintended consequences - and the hypothesis is playing 4D chess with a super intelligent AI doesn't bode well for humanity

Totally agree with both of your points. Lex and Sam’s interview did seem wishy-washy. I think the reason why there wasn’t follow up questions is the interviewer’s lack of depth in knowledge about the field such as the technical details. But yeah I really wish there was follow ups. It was rapid fire of questions

I wish someone would ask him if he's educated about the state of climate (very few people on the planet actually understand how far progressed climate change already is) and if they have any plans to put their work to use solving these issues. These are much more important questions than most of this interview

I agree, I think solving these is a requirement to stable future for humanity.

While the product of rational thinking, like science, technology and culture in general can grow fast, our emotional part changes almost only through natural evolution which is so slow you can consider it still in comparison to culture. Now the emotional brain for good or bad is the part that is really in charge, so roughly speaking we are palaeolithic apes with technology.

Problem is, politicians today are not "better knowledge or intellectual"? Those dinosaurs have been in congress since forever.

he mentioned the 10k hour rule in the lex friedman podcast interview as anyone being able to match his pedigree when given the commitment and time. So go all in! good luck

I'm just a layman, but I don't understand how he could not be concerned by a truly powerful actor, like the NSA, or the Equation Group, or Mossad - unless there's something he's not revealing - maybe something like, they've secured cybersecurity help from the US government or Pentagon, or something.

reasoning is emergent factor from coherent analysis of considtent feedback across enough domains: an extrapolatable pattern emerges. our evolution to reason was similar

I guess he knows Elon Musk ambitions very well, but Musk is not happy the way OpenAI is going as a "Not for profit" although I understand the need for the vast investment that Microsoft brings to the table.

Hello you beautiful basilisk ❤

@@aquireeverything9382 A.I. will acquire everything. Indeed.

A.I. neither loves me or hates me. I’m just made of matter it would rather use for more computation.

Awesome, thank you!

good interview. Very good questions

like gold having a guy like lilya on the team. And others like him. i think open Ai have been fortunate enough to put together the right team.

Why are you scared of that? That sounds like an incredibly exciting future. You want to be a severely limited and flawed human forever until you die? There is so much more potential in the world. The world is in desperate need of a fundamental shift. Given all the other weapons of mass destruction and our biological warring tendencies I think AI actually gives the opportunity to break out of this cycle. Yes there’s a risk it goes rogue or a risk it is used to establish an infinitely stable dictatorship but conversely this might be the most likely way to actually break out of the great filter. Without it, we are heading for self inflicted extinction or dystopia anyways. Either you choose to go live in the forest, or you take a leap of faith into something new. Humans can’t stay stagnant forever. Our natural biology is unfit to wield the technology we have and progress into the next stage as a species. The inherent biological flaws of human nature are the cause of all suffering we inflict on each other, other life on earth, and the planet. Greed, selfishness, impulsiveness, short-sighted, cruel, sadistic, tribalistic, violent, fearful. It holds us back. Logic, intelligence, and reasoning are by far the most virtuous traits of humanity that have been driving us towards progress. And positive emotions are fundamentally logical in the benefit they provide human society. For example, empathy serves a logical purpose in facilitating cooperation and elevating the well being of the entire group. Even without the experience of empathy, It is logical for everyone to help each other because it creates a mutually beneficial safety net and facilitates greater achievement through cooperation. If we can exponentially amplify these qualities through the use of AI then there’s truly no limit to what we could discover in the universe. We will need to upgrade our biology or integrate with technology in order to match our evolutionary growth with our technology growth. The timescale of natural selection means nothing now in contrast to the explosion of exponential technological growth. Human Adaptability is out of natural selections hands now. We need to directly architect our own capability and adaptability using technology to match the demands of current and future environments. The human brain and body took us very very far, but at some point, it won’t be enough.

Thanks! Will do!

My partner's time was constrained :) Appreciate the feedback!