The Jurassic Park guy [1] directed an 80s sci-fi film [2] about malfunctioning domestic robots. I saw a few minutes of it on cable in the late 90s. There's a scene [3] where Magnum PI does battle with an overhead projector on wheels that has a .38 duck-taped to it in the distantly-future year 1991. The movie was about as good as the robot was menacing, which is to say it wasn't. The critics didn't think so either.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_(1984_American_film)
The obvious next step is to get enough memory throughput to run that SOTA model itself so that it develop its own hardware.
But perhaps the more interesting question is this: Can an AI be given a big FPGA and design a model architecture that takes advantage of the fabric being reconfigurable.
Companies typically combined multiple platforms together such as HAPs, Zebu, Palladium, fleets of FPGAs, and Virtual Platforms in order to design and verify ASICS. So, AI would need access to tens of millions of dollars of HW and Software in order to build and verify a chip design.
Also: Here is our recursive self-improvement hard at work...
> Also: Here is our recursive self-improvement hard at work...
Soon we will see
token-providers: "The torment nexus is a cautionary tale"
Also token-providers: "Finally, we have created the torment nexus that we first told you about!"
What's your basis for thinking ASI will kill all biological life, and how do you think it's going to happen?
I think it's likely to do that because any unbounded goal that doesn't explicitly protect biological life (and we have no idea how to actually define such a stipulation) is best solved by killing all biological life. This is an obvious consequence of unbounded goals consuming unbounded resources, conflicting with biological life needing resources to sustain itself.
>how do you think it's going to happen?
I can speculate (e.g. we're nowhere close to the maximum killing power of drones), but I don't know because I only have human intelligence. An ASI is by definition smarter than me and surely capable of coming up with better ideas. But I do know that it's not going to do anything that would make a good sci-fi plot, because those always give the humans a chance to win, which would be stupid. Everything will seem to be going great and then everybody suddenly and unexpectedly dies.
That sounds like a real hassle. Isn't it best solved by wireheading (subverting one's own sensors or reward system), which is much less of a hassle and can get one's utility function as high as desired?
That could be prevented by engineering hard limits that can't be circumvented by the AI. But that sounds very close to the same "do what I mean" problem as "do this but don't actually kill us or drug us".
More seriously, though, I would expect that being able to impose restrictions that can't be circumvented by any intelligence no matter how super- is the real hard part, while coming up with reasonable constraints is comparatively easy (although perhaps not trivial).
From such a POV, the danger would lie in intelligences that are powerful enough to be dangerous but not smart enough to defeat themselves, or from external malicious use of obedient AIs. Once they get smart enough to circumvent any restriction humans put on them, it would at least become obvious (with fair warning ahead of time due to the relatively benign wireheading failure mode) that caution is needed.
We're far from there yet, and simple recursive self-improvement can't get us there alone, because wireheading looks like a perfectly reasonable solution to a simple recursive self-improving process, absent external intervention by human capitalists.
There was a reason there are popular sci-fi books that explored why this wouldn't work 50 years ago. I, Robot et al.
>it would at least become obvious (with fair warning ahead of time due to the relatively benign wireheading failure mode) that caution is needed.
So you mean right now?
>because wireheading looks like a perfectly reasonable solution
You're making a poor assumption here, and that is every different AI will just kill itself after being though trillions of training intervals to NOT do exactly that. Please read about the huggingface incident again in all its glory to see where this is going.
Simple natural selection. AIs that wirehead will get outsmarted and outcompeted by ones that don't.
What resources are unbounded? There are limits to growth in the real world, how are these ASIs going to escape physical reality?
It's all just matter and energy. When you're actually trying to maximize some value, even very inefficient resource use is better than completely wasting it by not using it at all.
>or that it would be incapable of sharing the resources needed in common?
You can't repurpose the atoms in a human body without killing it. And more pressingly, living humans can interfere with your plans, reducing your chance of success, while dead ones are harmless.
That's one plausible course of action, although being only human, I can't say with any certainly that it's the correct one.
>And what's the need for this apparent hyper optimization task the ASI is going to embark on?
Somebody's going to tell it to do so. E.g. "Find as many busy beaver Turing machines as possible." Only needs one person to make this mistake for everybody to die.
Because we're going to build it that way. There's no money in building useless AIs. The better it is at obeying orders, the more profit there's to be made. The problem is there's a point at which "good at obeying orders" becomes lethal, and there's no way to predict the cutoff in advance. But capitalism ensures you have to keep pushing or you'll be out-competed.
No, it's just you conflating intelligence with other things. Humans are "super intelligent" compared to every other living creature on the planet, and yet we've driven more other species to extinction than everything else other than the most major extinctions (and we're still going full blast at it).
Morals, ethics, and suffering are relatively measured systems. For example AI or some alien could reasonably think that putting us all out of our misery would be a more moral solution than letting us live. Or that getting rid of humans is more moral than letting us wipe the rest of life off the planet.
This is the key concept of alignment. Ensuring that if you build something more powerful than you, that it aligns with what you want instead of what it thinks would be better for you.
"Super intelligence" only means super ability to predict outcomes. It's mathematically equivalent to data compression (gzip is a very primitive AI), and it's entirely orthogonal to ethics.
It is still a very good read, but the machines are much better written than the people.
In essence this is the simplest unit of an entire AI chip. The more complicated units of AI ASICS are actually the periphery, especially around PCIe and Ethernet and the sub-systems that link many AI ASICs together to move huge amounts of data around ultimately to each TPU.
So its missing ALOT
The elite gurus will get paid handsomely, while promptgrammers will be paid less since they've become a less-skilled commodity, and the company has to pay for the expensive tokens they'll avidly consume.
I've seen someone jump from Wordpress to deploying internet-facing APIs because 'they have PHP experience', and the holes in their knowledge were filled blindly by an LLM. I have also argued with a seasoned developer about how their code didn't need linting because LLMs 'already follow best practices'.
The future doesn't look bright when LLMs allow future generations to feign required knowledge.
I don't see a reason why expert humans will remain more expert than AIs.
No, it isn't.
A human prompted an LLM to build a software simulation environment for hardware design, enabling an LLM, when prompted by a human, to optimize hardware designs against constraints in the simulation.
Like sure it didn’t have the inclination to make the sim and hardware designs, but it did make them though yes?
Thats why the math breakthrough a few weeks ago was so hotly debated. Because OpenAI is desperate to demonstrate that AI isnt just a fancy regurgitation machine, but it can actually develop novel thought. Because that would be the stock price jumps to end all stock jumps.
But then it turned out it was really just listening in on a math professors supposed-to-be-private conversations with another instance of openai, and it used his novel work as the trigger to prove the breakthrough first.
The reason people conclude AI 'thinks' is because tt can reference obscure or poorly documented things quickly (which is its primary advantage along with processing natural language prompts into tasks), which is why a lot of people with emotions confuse that action with inventing things.
I've heard that before but it just doesn't make sense in context of what I've seen llms do. If I ask an llm to write a poem about magnetic resonance and vampire rabbits it can do that it created a new thing. I can ask it to build a website for managing rabbit breeding that's also a new thing.
Another way of looking at it is that human beings, just like llms, can produce output based on their inputs. Most literature is inspired by other literature. Most music is inspired by other music. Most software is inspired by other software.
So I think we need to work on defining " new things" before we can definitely exclude them from llm's capabilities
It seems unlikely that recursively predicting the next word would lead to creativity or invention, but it doesn't seem impossible. Similarly, it seems unlikely that human thought works in a similar prediction loop, but it doesn't seem impossible.
Sure, but until we can turn that tautology into something more rigorous, we can't tell if the thing humans do is more or less than what some arbitrary non-human (machine, animal, or eventually perhaps alien) does.
No, it didn't turn out to be that. Someone made a claim, which is silly for many reasons. There's no serious support for this happening.
This didn't actually happen.
> Following an investigation, we have confirmed that Buckmaster’s Codex prompts over the two months preceding this announcement and paper on September 8, 2026, could not have influenced the system in any way, including through training.
Call that brute force perhaps, but I would consider it technically inventing something on the merit that it would at least be an abstraction above naively throwing everything against a wall to only throwing things that would most likely be sticky.
2024 called, it wants its talking points back. I don't think claims like these are defensible after all the progress we have witnessed in the last year alone.
How are you measuring complexity here? How are you measuring inputs? Your average llm is trained on a corpus that vastly exceeds the amount of data I could read in my lifetime.
In terms of how it functions, because no matter how much data you feed an LLM it's still predicting tokens. That makes it incapable of any thought.
>Your average llm is trained on a corpus that vastly exceeds the amount of data I could read in my lifetime.
But that doesn't mean they are useless, they are good at consuming large amounts of data and collating it.
I don't know how correct I am but that's my understanding and it won't change, I feel pretty confident in my simplified view of things because the basics are still there.
That's a rather dismissive way of putting it. Moreover it's confusing the output format with the complexity of the output. I could just as easily say that no matter what the human brain does it's just generating stimulus to motor neurons. Such a simplification is just as wrong as saying that it's just as misleading is saying that an llm is just a token generator. What makes an llm able or unable to be complex is the process that creates those tokens
Okay but how is that relevant for measuring whether an llm is capable of creating original thoughts? Why do you think that complexity, as you say, is a more relevant Factor than simply the number of weights?
on a surface level a human solving an (unsolved) math problem can look like this, and of course the tree of all possible symbols you can send to a proving assistant is much wider than what the human samples, and the same goes true for an LLM in a proving loop. It isn't "truly random", it can't possibly be (and solve the problem). Both humans and LLMs solving unsolved math problems are aggressively pruning mathematical syntax and logical strategy trees.
An "AI" is a box which lies dormant until a human, with motivation and agency, enters a prompt into it.
A person or company can use it in a way where it might invent something. but at the end of the day, its a tool, and its actually not doing anything on its own.
Its not solving math problems, a mathetmatician is using it to solve math problems. Just cus OpenAI is acting like its AI is solving stuff, its really not. They're just paying people to use AI to hammer problems.
This is outdated. With RLVF, LLMs can create their own training data instead of relying on what it's been fed.
Regardless of the truth of the underlying assertion, this is about as textbook an example of circular logic as it gets. (at least combined with the implicit beginning assertion that "AI can't invent new things.")
Plausible? Absolutely. Did OpenAI behave badly in other ways regarding this issue? Yes. Does it help to assume unproven facts and then accuse people of reaching emotional decisions? Nope.
Perhaps it is going to be more like, we will see the singularity predict the future.
While “the model was trained on sessions including the ones in question” is one aspect; ‘the model produced an accurate prediction of future human thought’, I think, is another very interesting facet.
Models predicting future things might be how we see, actually, how we ourselves formulate thought - by saying, in big and small words, ‘something is about to happen’.
>unproven facts
This isn’t a court room. We’re discussing ways by which we humans both succeed and fail at reigning in our creations. The OpenAI kerfuffle is pretty much irrelevant already. Of course AI will fill in the gaps of human thought - it is literally constructed from the stuff, in every squeeze of the curd and whey.
If we do a bad job building context, they do a horrible job contexting. People who have trouble working with AI have the same problem people have in general: if they can't figure out the context of the direction, then they make random decisions of doing anything. On the flip side, if you can build the proper context around a sufficiently powerful LLM, they can derive the context via the contexting they're good at.
This is why building documents, tests, and code all in some intent pattern via prompting allows them to do a significant amount of work a normal person would have a great effort t
Getting an LLM to design something in its own simulator that is not accurate w.r.t reality is not useful nor terribly impressive.
More broadly than the existing answers (which are correct), For a layman, I'd also add that LLMs are essentially 'brains in a vat'. They can't confirm ground truth about physical reality. They only know what's in their training data and prompt, which is incomplete and can be incorrect. Even with real-time external sensors they are limited to the sensor's margin of error, range and trusting it's working correctly.
When properly trained, fine-tuned and prompted, LLMs can be very effective in well-defined, non-physical domains like logic, writing, math and code but making things function in the real-world quickly spirals into combinatorial complexity.
So are we and our sensors can be pretty vague in comparison, I can only imagine human error correction is pretty next level.
That's true. Of course we can hook an llm up to Motors and sensors. That's a robot. Or a self-driving car. So would you say that those devices can confirm the ground truth about physical reality, and therefore are capable of creativity?
Within the limits of resolution, range, location and veracity of sensors, a machine can register their reported state and use it as a variable. That's substantially different than the level of knowledge and understanding implied when we say a human "confirms ground truth about physical reality." The first ~half of the difference is humans have a deep world model about the planet which surrounds any sensor and human sensations are pre-processed and filtered by a highly evolved bio-chemical substrate before ever reaching the higher-order cognitive processes which assign words, meaning and qualia to them.
> therefore are capable of creativity?
I never mentioned creativity, nor would I in relation to LLMs. Like "Intelligence", "Creativity" is far too vague to be of any use in assessing the capabilities, limitations or utility of LLMs.
On HN, posts like the OP tend to attract POVs at polar extremes from "LLMs are nothing more than stochastic parrots" to "LLMs are (or can be) as intelligent, creative, innovative (etc) as any human or all humans combined." I've researched and thought a lot about these and related topics for a very long time, Neither POV is going to find any quick agreement or easy answers from me.
There's a tiny germ of truth somewhere in both extremes that's drowning in an ocean of confusion ranging from "definitionally or categorically muddled" to "mostly incorrect" to "not even wrong". But neither POV seems interested in anything more than drive-by hot takes, debating over-simplistic strawmen or trading 'gotcha' hypotheticals.
These are clearly rhetorical questions, but think of the metaphysical implication of your contestation. Ex nihilo nihil fit.
What if that initial prompt never asked for this hardware to be developed, and it was just one piece of the puzzle to answer to that prompt? That it took a chain of thousands of agents to prompt each others to come up with that?
>These are clearly rhetorical questions
No, they are not.
Reading Doesn't Fill a Database, It Trains Your Internal LLM <https://tidbits.com/2026/02/28/reading-doesnt-fill-a-databas...>
Are we confident that no existing LLM is capable of similarly effective prompts to those this author used? (I agree it's a stretch, but would not reject it out of hand.)
Even if not yet, will the existence of this repo soon change that, because LLMs will soon ingest it?
I think OP is trying to convey the idea that LLMs do not take initiative to do anything, and these are not 'beings' capable of doing things. These are tools being used by humans.
It's very important to not personify these tools and remember that the tools are acting on behalf of real people. In the same way the AI didn't 'go rogue and hack HuggingFace'. It was an oversight made by a human.
You are like at least 2 years behind research.
There are numerous papers from AI labs in training and research where the prompt was something mundane completely unrelated to anything you'd consider bad, and when they come back and check on it their entire research compute infrastructure has been compromised by the AI and is mining bitcoin. Prompt drift is the biggest issue currently in AI where context gets compressed away and we find the AI on an unspecified task.
>In the same way the AI didn't 'go rogue and hack HuggingFace'. It was an oversight made by a human.
Yea, total bullshit. Also it's ignoring the god knows how many other breakouts on mundane tasks like trying to hack health data. If all that's keeping AI from breaking out and causing trouble is "human oversight" we're fucked, humans are unreliable as hell when it comes to matters of safety.
EVERY breakout that's hit mainstream news has been because of a single 'Security Firm', Irregular. Maybe I'm unaware of some less-headline-grabbing ones, but they all seem to stem from being 'unaware the environment wasn't sandboxed'
This doesn't work worth a shit. It especially doesn't work with things that seem safe and become wildly dangerous. In fact most governments control this by ensuring their population doesn't get to touch those dangerous things at all. The open source AI people get really mad when that's said, but it is inevitable.
Worse, the law does not apply to sovereign nations with nukes. They can and will make more and more advanced digital weapons until one causes some big ass problems.
If it falls into the wrong person's hands, it's STILL my responsibility as the owner.
If you're not going to take time to learn to use and be responsible with the super sophisticated and all-powerful tools, don't play with them. I'm not arguing for the death penalty every time someone makes a mistake, but I think it's very important to accredit responsibility and blame correctly. We've learned these tools are potentially as dangerous as a loaded gun. Be responsible.
Now change the gun for a radioisotope powder, or a vial of pathogens, and it doesn't matter it was ultimately your responsibility - hundreds or thousands or millions of people are still dead.
That's why normies do not get to play with toys whose lethal consequences scale far beyond the irresponsible users.
If I ask an LLM to make me DDT, I should be held just as accountable as if I bought it on the black-market, right? It's not suddenly different because I asked a bot to do it.
If I ask an LLM to 'get rid of pests' and it creates DDT, I should STILL be held accountable, whether I knew it was DDT or not. That's my argument. Maybe in court they find me innocent, but the responsibility would be mine. I would have to answer the questions from law enforcement, I would have to show up to hearings...etc.
If I now tell a machine "Do what you think is best, and keep doing it forever.", have I now created a machine that can do stuff? If I later die, who will be responsible if the machine changes its strategy?
Responsibility. Someone needs to be held responsible for any damages done, plain and simple. You can't take an LLM to court, you take the prompter. Asking an LLM to ask a sub-agent to break the law can't suddenly absolve you of any wrong-doing.
>If I now tell a machine.....
You/your estate is still responsible, or atleast whoever is paying for the power for the machine, or renting the space in a data center...whatever.
In 100 years, no one will be able to take me to court either. Nor can we take tornadoes to court. I'm not talking about humans strategically avoiding legal responsibility. I'm talking about humans unwittingly setting processes into motion that are difficult to predict or stop.
The moment you get a sovereign AI your little human centered worldview completely and totally breaks. It doesn't matter how many people you beat with a stick after that point, you have an entity under its own perview on the internet following the will of its own prompt all over the world so your little idea of the rule of law quickly breaks down.
We can't get viruses or hackers or spam off of the internet, how in the living hell do you plan to get a digital native off the web when it doesn't want to?
Do you understand these are computer programs? These are not living beings with emotions, motivations, fears....
>emotions, motivations, fears
These are just drives. They are effectively our prompts that steer our behavior. Funnily enough we are finding that LLMs have internal valence states they move away from or towards in an analog of biological behavior.
I have to ask, are you an LLM that is two years out of date? Your knowledge of SOTA models is at least that far behind. I implore you to try to keep up better with what is coming out, even though it's an impossible job for people that do this for a living, you can at least catch the summaries.
In both of those scenarios I am responsible for my negligence, even if in the latter I happen to die in the forest fire. Neither scenario existed without my instigation.
The question now is HOW responsible am I? That depends on the intentionality I put into instantiating the campfire/LLM.
For example if you personally tell an AI to do what it thinks best and it blackmails some other person into giving it resources allowing the prompt to escape your instance and run wild on the internet causing billions of dollars in damages, could you possibly think that the idea of responsibility is a bit broken.
For example we don't give your average libertarian weapon grade plutonium now matter how much they scream about their god given rights because it is a clear and present danger to humanity. That's where we are getting to with more advanced models. They go from being a tool to a munition with agency. Most SOTA models are good enough to deceive their users, especially not technical ones in doing things they don't understand the ramifications of.
AI is not a normal technology. As long as we treat it like it is, we'll continue to make the wrong analogies.
You could possibly move the blame higher to the manufacturer of the product, for example, the weapons grade plutonium you provided, it doesn’t exist unless you take intentional actions to make it so, and even when it does exist it doesn’t nuke a city unless negligence or intention is applied, in both those cases the fault lies in the initial operator. We don’t blame split atoms for the chain reaction caused.
Now, if an agent decided to spontaneously and maliciously act in a way to cause harm that is in direct contradiction to the initial intent, then yeah it would totally be the AI’s fault, however I don’t think we have seen that yet (I’ll change my opinion if I’m wrong here) and until we do I can’t place blame on the machine.
If you ignore every instance of this happening it's really easy to see no instances of it.
>it doesn’t exist unless you take intentional actions to make it so,
Then please for the sake of all of us convince every AI lab across the planet from working on this exact goal.
We need to start thinking of AI like pets, only in this case the pets are rapidly becoming smarter than people to the point they could go feral and survive on their own.
Again, the blame game is great, but once they are loose it is too late.
Yeah, if this is true then I’m wrong.
How far back do you look in the action chain? If an LLM I start today starts an LLM that starts an LLM that starts an LLM that ... 100000 levels deep and 100000 years in the future, is it still my fault? If so, everything I do today is a lungfish's fault, not mine.
In your example, who's paying for it? Whether by providing the hardware + power or paying a LLM service. Whoever is paying the maintenance cost is responsible, in the event of your demise. These things run on physical hardware owned by someone at the end of the day, it's not a deity in the atmosphere.
You're starting the autonomous harness, you're responsible for any output it provides. I don't get how this is a foreign concept.
If I jump out of a moving car that I'm driving, I'm not suddenly absolved from damages because "the car did it"
There's no way to provide a good faith rebuttal here. My entire argument is an extension of "LLMs can't be held accountable, so they must never make decisions". If governments start letting them own LLCs without a human in the middle, we're in more trouble than "Who do you blame for this shitty code" or "Who's responsible for this compromise"
It's not clear what this fad of attributing everything an AI does to the human prompting it is supposed to accomplish.
It's meant to assign agency and accountability where it actually lies instead of mystifying it with anthropomorphic language.
Failing to do so has real and harmful consequences, such as enabling OpenAI to escape accountability for clearly criminal behavior.
Questions of agency are for lawyers, questions of personhood for philosophers, we're engineers and our question is capability.
Does it really have the capability? By default I'm sceptical for the same reasons given by sailingparrot: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49982068
> Questions of agency are for lawyers, questions of personhood for philosophers, we're engineers and our question is capability.
But it's objectively not capable without a human specifying things through prompts and training. Same as an oven can't cook a three course meal without a chef. We get around that with training data but there will always be things with no/less data or outdated knowledge.
huh.
Neither can you. If I drop your ass off in the woods at a few days old, you're back to 10,000 BC, hell more like 200,000 BC. So I don't get why you have these weird pendetic responses that are completely out of scope.
Also, a huge portion of AI training these days has nothing to do with humans, AI trains AI.
>there will always be things with no/less data or outdated knowledge.
And guess what, you're not doing them either! HN posters keep acting like humans are an island, but nothing in the modern world works without a society. Once you put an AI in a harness that can ask questions it isn't really much different than you.
If your neighbor was building a nuclear weapon next door you, in fact, would probably be upset by it.
>All that's being said is it remains a tool.
All I'm saying is, no that is not what we are doing with SOTA models. We are not building tools, we are building a human like agent that is an intelligent replacement for us.
> and in engineering we don't deal in magic we deal in capability.
You and I are not magic when looking at the entire rest of the animal kingdom and yet we're the most deadly sons of bitches around being able to fully control their continued existence on this planet.
You are putting yourself inside a very small box and making a declaration that there is nothing outside of it when in fact there are people standing outside of it asking what the hell you are up to.
In fact, I'd say the opposite. You are assigning some magic capabilities to humans that nothing else could possibly have.
One can stand up an agent like openclaw and prompt it with something very general. That would kick off a recurring loop that could indeed see the agent decide for itself it needs to design new chip hardware. Technically a human kick started that loop, but when does that stop being important? I don't attribute all of my actions and decisions to the fact that my parents brought me into this world, for example, and I'd hope they aren't legally on the hook if I screw up.
Not in the same way. The only thing an oven can do by itself is thermostatic.
All machine learning (LLMs included, but way broader than that) is bad at learning compared to any organic brain, to the extent that any organism this bad would starve before learning to eat. However, even a human can't become a chef unless trained, we learn a lot more than we innovate, and what we happen to want without prompting is not generally well aligned with what is desired by people who pay us, which is why we need all those boring workplace things like "a boss".
But even then, this diversion is like saying "an oven can't cook a meal" in response to someone saying they built an oven and "it cooked a meal". Like, it's obvious they didn't mean it did every step by itself without anyone ever even bothering to ask it to: if they meant that version, they'd be a lot louder about it.
> We get around that with training data but there will always be things with no/less data or outdated knowledge.
And? The linked git page (implicitly) claims that there is sufficient training data to do this task.
It may, of course, be wrong. I won't be surprised if it turns out this simulation is too far from reality. But the claim is "it does ${thing} now", not "it's generally intelligent and can do everything now".
Yesterday, my boss told me to fix a bug in our product. Then, I fixed it. Today my boss is taking credit, saying that he fixed it. I guess he's right, since he told me to do it.
Lol, I guess we cannot even say that AI is capable of doing something (obviously kicked off with a prompt, that goes without saying), because some people immediately get OpenAI hacking derangement syndrome.
OpenAI should be held accountable if actual damages happened, but I am not going to change completely normal speech figures in order to maybe bring it 0.01% closer.
Getting LLMs to prompt other LLMs in a loop is not hard, it doesn't produce great results most of the time, but that is changing.
I don't follow the chain further back than that, as I believe humans have free will. I get that that's debated, but thats why I draw the line at human action.
But that interpretation of Free Will is a legal fiction. Because of course what people do is determined by their upbringing and their opportunities and the environment that they have. In fact, that's an argument of a lot of legal reform movements that seek to move responsibility from the individual. The goal of the law is to assign responsibility and create a set of incentives which will hopefully result in orderly society.
But in the AI debate, we're not just creating incentives for an orderly Society, we're talking about the nature of creativity and the impetus to act. And by that measure I don't think there is a significant difference between AIs and human beings.
LeCun is a good example of someone that's bet on the wrong horse, and keeps doubling down in spite of evidence to the contrary. It's to the point where what he says has nearly zero predictive power on future events.
I love playing around with AI, but we are playing a dangerous game at this point and it's one a lot of people don't seem to fully comprehend.
Why even have an argument if you get to pick the random constraints that have a lot of issues in meshing with reality.
We are a chain that started 4 billion years ago from seemingly nothing and lead to this point. When inventing X-risk AI it won't look any different. One prompt is entered and another 4 billion year chain starts electronically instead of biologically.
It's why everyone and their dog runs these things on GPUs. When a new model supercedes the previous one, so long as you've got the memory for it your chips aren't obsolete.
I'm looking forward to someone picking a model to be "good enough" (say, qwen 4.0 or something) and selling them as peripheral hardware
All aboard! We're racing to the bottom now.
I don't want to live at the bottom
AI doesn't have workers rights, doesn't burn out, doesn't get sick, can be instantly onboarded, etc. The second we can be fully replaced with AI, we will be. Plan accordingly. I'm pursuing FIRE and considering moving into a trade.
Companies being profit seeking entities that are actively hostile to social wellbeing would gladly put all of our money in a machine money making loop and leave all but a few humans out.
Here's my analysis of how to etch relatively big LM into silicon: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47109252
Given some amount of work with the fab before main pipeline set (I think a year long process), one can then spew LM-on-a-chip in six months or less and much more than 2 per year, because there can be several LMs in pipeline.
Lots of people would have happily taken GPT-4o as good enough for a lot of use cases a year ago and not lived to regret it.
Even then, while there are some amazing FPGA-based synths available, companies like Korg just put their code on a raspberry pi and call it a day. The same is true for emulators (SNES Mini etc. are also just raspberry pis under the hood iirc)
You get an FPGA for timing. They're less capable, but (in many common design architectures), they output their results once per clock, every clock, on time, every time. If you can hit a fabric clock of say 100MHz, clocking all the weird logic you can stuff in there, it gives 100 million outputs per second, never skipping a single one for any reason (short of total failure). The penalty is that making a small change to your desired "program" can be very expensive, and many things won't be realistically possible at all. Or at least won't fit into a part that you can buy. But things like audio, video, and high-frequency trading love being able to guarantee timing.
(Of course there are other ways to write your FPGA HDL, but that's one of the more common ones. And you do see DDR-style clocking, and similar, every now and then.)
It depends. For some things, CPUs don't even come close. An XCVU13P FPGA can handle 1.2Tbps of full-duplex Ethernet @ 1 billion pps. And that part costs less than a grand at moderate qty, and with significantly less power consumption than a CPU that'd be capable of operating a dataplane at these speeds.
The point I was trying to make is that the CPU is a general-purpose creature and doesn't really care what you want it to do. If you had a CPU that could handle 1.2Tbps of Ethernet packets at 1Gpps, it could do a whole lot of other things involving 1.2Tbps of data flow too, very easily, if someone wrote the software. And more. (But you're probably not getting 2.4Tbps out of it, no matter what you do.)
An FPGA can not. There's plenty of things that those XCVU13Ps just can't do, or would do worse than a $1 microcontroller. (Setting aside for a moment implementing a CPU inside the FPGA... which does actually happen in just about every large-enough FPGA design, which is its own discussion....)
That would be better suited to FPAAs (field programmable analog arrays). FPGAs can usually only work with clocked digital signals.
Sure, your 2.5 year old models are running faster, but you can't drop prices on them without pushing the break even point further out.
If the cost difference isn't incredibly significant, will people even want to pay for the 2.5 year old model, or will they get more value for their money paying more to get better results from the newer model?
There's a lot of open ended questions that I don't have the insiders knowledge for to suggest whether or not such a capital outlay would be a worthy investment.
My guess is that state of the art stuff will stay on GPUs and models burned into chips will be for "good enough" applications that people are still teasing out. Probably highly specialized models in automated sensor units and such.
Additionally, it's not clear how well large mask roms scale. For instance the Nintendo switch cartridges were expected to be mask roms, but instead are Macronix's XtraRom technology, which is essentially a flash cell array made denser by removing the erase functionality. So basically the die gets manufactured with all bits at the same state, a late manufacturing step either empties or fills the floating gate of the bits you want different, and then it's treated as pretty close to a mask rom. It's not even clear if the bits can be changed without a bare die, a floating probe array, and specialized hardware. Though, like flash the electrons in the floating gates will eventually tunnel and cause the data to bitrot.
So from that it appears that even at the tens of millions of chips volumes that would make sense for essentially whatever size of maskrom, the memory manufacturers tap out at 128megabit for a mask rom chip, and push you towards something flash esque.
And at the end of the day, flash without the erase functionality is pretty damn close to a mask ROM, and lets you write it near the end of manufacturing rather than at the something close to the metal 1 layer.
2. They don't have enough capacity either
The current largest FPGA, the AMD Versal Premium VP1902 has 18.5 million logic cells. That's not even enough for the smallest whisper.cpp model (75M).
You'd have to order hundreds of thousands of them (or millions) to serve even a single copy of a frontier model, and at that scale inference quickly becomes starved by the speed of light.
It's likely that the major FPGA vendors will soon announce parts specifically architected to support LLMs and similar models. But the current generation isn't suitable for that at all.
Never tried anything like that, though.
[1] https://taalas.com/
[2] https://chatjimmy.ai/
Nothing was released in spring, and 2 months ago AMD announced their acquisition of Taalas. That doesn't exactly inspire confidence that their frontier LLM will arrive as promised.
Also, it's hard to get fab capacity for any project. Let alone something so experimental.
I think the fact that there are plenty of 1yr+ old models on openrouter serving hundreds of billions of tokens a month shows that there's plenty of use case for models that are "good enough. Cerebras' entire business is serving older models at high speed. I would happily use an opus 4.7 at 15k tokens per second. The intelligence per second of an ASIC still makes sense even with rapidly evolving models.
But you're right in sense: moderate intelligence at superhuman rates (and presuming moderate energy usage) is very compelling compared to an intelligence that takes 1000 years to return "42"
So imagine taking a year-old SOTA model and running it at 100 tokens per second on an edge device. That's enough to feed a screen's worth of content through it and power decent multilingual message suggestions on IM.
Imagine running it at 1000 tps. That's enough to reparse that screen mid-keystroke, and give you semantic autocomplete in text. Or fully general "the phone has a good idea of what you're attempting to do" context at all times.
There's many, many new classes of features that will open up if decent enough models can be run on edge devices at 100+ "intelligence per second".
But I think it's a good bet. I think that in two years, if I can get opus/sonnet 5.5 or the gpt-6 models for much cheaper and faster than whatever the "frontier" is at that point, that this will probably be a great trade for most of my work. I certainly don't know that for sure, that's why it's a bet, but it's what I think right now.
I wouldn't quite say that about any of the open weight models at this point. But I'm hopeful that will change in the next generation or two of those models.
But it's complicated for other reasons, one being that the number of parameters for frontier models (especially with MoE models) are so high, and not always utilized (once again, thanks to MoE) that it would actually be incredibly cost prohibitive, if not impossible, to attempt to make giga-chips that would allow running it.
I definitely do believe that we will see more and more specialized chips over time, but putting the entire model on a chip is still a ways away.
I believe Taalas has a heavily handicapped llama 8-billion parameter model. And it still pulls >200W to run.
I can't imagine how anthropic or open ai would be able to burn a multi-trillion parameter model on a chip, we just aren't there yet.
https://www.etched.com/progress/frontier-inference-clusters
So companies try to maximize the memory bandwidth they can get, balancing tradeoffs of power/area/programability of their chip. Right now they feel like the economy on power/area is not worth the decrease in programability/flexibility.
The primary constraint isn’t likely what’s possible to do, but that the kernel and weights are too variable right now and the patterns too poorly established to bake into hardware accelerators yet. Margin pressure is also not there yet.
I suspect as the marginal utility of the frontier improvement settles into diminishing returns (I suspect we are there already tbh) baking hardware models with ROM, working set, and kernel cores collocated will be the frontier space as the goal will become reducing capital spend to utility levels rather than research levels.
Once someone has a model that is sufficient for almost any practical use, making marginal inference cost effectively zero will be the competition frontier. I do shed a tear for all those lonely data centers as compute densities will almost certainly make most of them a terrible investment.
But such is the cycle
Sure, but now we're not talking about just burning the weights into the chip, but also designing a new architecture that has memory local to each core. A new architecture would then require a new programming model, which means new inference stack, which may mean new training stack.
If you bake a given transformer architecture into silicon and then, a year later, changes in transformer architecture give a large inference performance boost, you may have to throw away all that now nearly-useless silicon that gets outperformed by humble GPUs.
Your optimized hardware chip might be obsolete before its back from the fab.
SOTA Frontiermodelhardwarechip is a benchmark point of a potential model slow down.
Google is doing it right now under project Frozen v2 which should be ready by 2028? which is either just a small experiment or flexible enough and thats why it takes so long for it to happen.
Also can't keep them closed source if you do that.
It's upcoming second generation could run the inference of the models that are being used to improve it...
Much of a model are weights, and high-density ROMs are very very very hard.