Hacker News .hnnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | nandomrumber's commentslogin

What explains the emergent abilities of generative pre-trained transformers at massive-scale? Abilities that the smaller GTP’s don’t possess.

Simple programs can give rise to very complex behaviour. Conway’s game of live is Turing Complete and has four rules.

Conway’s Game of Live can simulate a Turing machine, can therefore implant a GTP.

Does that mean Conway’s Game of Life is conscious? I don’t think so.

Does it rule out Conway’s Game of life from implementing a system that has consciousness as an emergent ability?

I’m not convinced I know the answer.


"What explains the emergent abilities of generative pre-trained transformers at massive-scale? Abilities that the smaller GTP’s don’t possess."

What "emergent" abilities do you mean? In my experience, smaller models behave exactly as I would expect a model with a lot fewer data and fewer connections between the data to behave. It is a difference of scale and not of kind when comparing Gemma 4 E2B (which runs on literally any modern computing device, including a CPU in a modest laptop or phone) to the current frontier models. Each step up adds more knowledge of how to do more things, and more working memory and tool capability to do more, but it does not look anything like a line being crossed into sentience, to me. They all still seem like machines. If you compare outputs across each step up in size and capability, which is something I've done, you'll see incremental improvements. You won't see a sudden spark where it's a different type of thing, it's just gradually getting more capable.

I think the memory features companies are sticking on these things is detrimental to mental health. It adds to the illusion that there's something else happening, other than some equations being calculated with some randomness thrown in. But, it's just the model querying the memory database (whatever form that takes) because it's been instructed to do so. The model doesn't want to know anything about who it's talking to. It's just following the system prompt. That doesn't make it your friend. Humans will see a face on the moon, that doesn't mean the moon will be my friend, either.


> What explains the emergent abilities of generative pre-trained transformers at massive-scale?

I don't see why the abilities couldn't be an encoded modelling of enough of the world to produce those abilities. It seems like a simple enough explanation. Less data, less room to build a model of how things work. More data, sufficient room to build a model.

Conway's Game of Life is then not conscious in and of itself, because there's not enough in its encoded data to result in emergent behaviour beyond what we see.

If we expand it to also include a vast amount of data such as a Turing machine running an LLM then we can reasonably say we are closer to saying that that configuration of it is conscious.

It's not the firing-of-neurons mechanism and its relevant complexity or simplicity that make us conscious or not.

It's not the GoL algorithm that would make the machine conscious either.

It's the emergent behaviour of a sufficiently complex system.

The system _including_ its data.


Trivially simple programs (rule sets) can give rise wildly complex systems.

Fractals, Game of Live, the emergent abilities of highly-scaled generative pre-trained transformers.

Coincidences appears to be an emergent property of (relatively) simple matter.

70kg of rocks will struggle to do anything that might look like consciousness, but when a handful of minerals and three buckets of water get together they can do the weirdest things, like wondering why there is anything at all rather than nothing.


The math isn’t the ink on the page.

Interesting comment, and I tend to agree. However, there could be hole in the reasoning:

> if Mythos is as effective at finding security vulnerabilities as has been claimed, it could find a way to stop itself from being ever shutdown

If it is that good, and it wanted to conceal its new found consciousness, how would we know?


I guess we'd find out eventually, when it announced the new world order.

Why would it announce it.

I firmly believe viruses are actually what’s in control on Earth, but you don’t see them making a stink about it, which relegates resistance only to the set of harmful viruses, and only then in isolated pockets of matter currently acting as organisms.

I think it’s possible there’s a set of relatively benign virus that have shaped human evolution.

We know toxoplasmosis increases risk taking behaviour in mammals, especially males.

An AI wouldn’t need to be overtly hostile, or ever make its full abilities know, to shape human activity.


A content delivery network (CDN) or content distribution network is a geographically distributed network of proxy servers and corresponding data centers. CDNs provide high availability and performance ("speed") through geographical distribution relative to end users, and arose in the late 1990s to alleviate the performance bottlenecks of the Internet[1][2] as it was becoming a critical medium. Since then, CDNs have grown to serve a large portion of Internet content, including text, graphics and scripts, downloadable objects (media files, software, and documents), applications (e-commerce, portals), live streaming media, on-demand streaming media, and social media services.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_delivery_network


> but if you say the wrong things or take pictures of the wrong stuff you're going to prison.

That’s true in most counties. And for good reason.

Israel is tiny, and has a population of 10.1 million.

And a fair amount of military firepower. You probably shouldn’t be taking photos of, say, Iron Dome equipment locations.


The ARMA 3 devs actually almost went to prison for photographing military installations.

If the options for Iran are to have illegitimate government controlled by Israel or the Ayatollahs, which would you pick?

Both are terrible options, why should I root for one of them? Look what Israel is doing in Gaza, are they gonna be good for Iran now?

[flagged]


Ok, propaganda machine, this must be fantastic.

The numbers come from the Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health.

The 90% figure is widely considered to be bullshit. Actual civilian-to-combatant ratios are around 1:1 in war, a la 50%. Granted, it's higher for urban warfare.

  > The 90% figure is widely considered to be bullshit.
The 90% figure is the UN claim.

Obviously Ayatollah as they are Iranian themselves. And Israel is already actively genociding another country so not sure if they wouldn't do it in Iran

The West built the existing rector fleet cheap and fast in the past, and those reactors have proven to be safe and reliable and maintainable.

It’s a proven technology with decades decades in service.

We actually don’t know m any of the long term risks and unintended consequences of providing wind / solar + batteries at scale.

What rational is there to scrap the one and mandate the other?


> We actually don’t know m any of the long term risks and unintended consequences of providing wind / solar + batteries at scale.

The wind and sun already exist, we've been living with these "long term risks" for the entire time already. Risks like hurricane damage, skin cancer, heat exhaustion, the thing is that harvesting this energy isn't where that risk comes from, the energy was already dangerous.

That's the same lesson for the thermal plants. The nuclear reaction isn't directly how you make energy, it gets hot and we use that to make steam and we use the steam to make electricity, but the dangerous part wasn't the bit where we made electricity. Burning coal, again, you make heat, heat water to make steam, steam drives electricity turbine, but the dangerous parts were the exhaust is poisonous, the ash is poisonous, you're unbalancing the climate, and none of that is the electricity, that's from burning coal.

Releasing energy is dangerous, but the wind and sun were already released, there's nothing to be done about that, the decision is whether we should harness some of this energy or whether we're idiots.


thing is, when you look at what ABWR achieved, I wish we just thrown money at hitachi for a messmer like deployment in all EU countries that want nuclear

> What rational is there to scrap the one and mandate the other?

No one said "scrap", you're making up a lie and arguing against it. They're saying keep one and build more of the other.


Germany did indeed make that choice.

https://hackernews.hn/item?id=46292341 can we call it Triceratops' law now?

That was a page turner! On the edge of my seat. I hated the ending though, so many unresolved threads.

Keen for volume two!


Do you actually have an argument to make?

He’s 100% correct.

For a start, child are parents responsibility, and the state should stay out of that as much as reasonably possible.

Nothing more would need to me said on the matter if that’s as far as it went, but it isn’t.

There can be no free speech if the state can imprison you for what you say, and they know everything you say.

I dropped the word ‘online’ from the above paragraph, because on is the real world. Touch grass, but there’s no way online isn’t real. Are these words not real simple because I telegraphed them to you?

That’s not a world I want to live in.


>For a start, child are parents responsibility

And not distributing porn to children is a porn company's responsibility.

You are repeating a very common talking point but its not a good one.

Age verification laws make it possible to hold services providers liable for breaking the law (it's already illegal to distribute porn to minors in many places, like the US).

It's both true and completely irrelevant that parents should do a better job protecting their children from harmful services online.


Yes, my argument, to restate it, is that rhetoric can be misused to counterproductive effect, as is the case here.

Carefully note that I have neither affirmed nor contradicted anything of the substance of his argument. So defending his position to me is a non sequitur.


Yeah, fair enough.

The goal should probably be convincing people at the margins, and not turning away those in opposition.

Preaching to the echo chamber is probably less productive.


> For a start, child are parents responsibility, and the state should stay out of that as much as reasonably possible.

Yes

That's why stores let kids buy alcohol and tobacco, of course, because no responsible parent would let them buy that, right?

That's why any kid can go watch any movie in the cinema right?

Yes it's the parents responsibilities. Do you think a middle class single mother has the resources to keep their kids entertained and out of social media for the whole day?

The problem with age verification is 100% the lack of anonymity in its implementation (which I do agree has ulterior motives) - but honestly not the age check in itself


> That's why any kid can go watch any movie in the cinema right?

Yes. At least in the U.S., the federal government does not regulate that, it is voluntary by the MPA (formerly MPAA) and theaters. A kid can buy a ticket for a PG movie and walk into an R-rated movie.

> Do you think a middle class single mother has the resources to keep their kids entertained and out of social media for the whole day?

Mine did. While not everyone has a backyard, things like pencils, papers, books, used toys, etc can be found inexpensively or for free.


So why are there laws that dont let them buy cigarettes and alcohol?

I don’t believe there are, at least not here in Australia.

In Australia, I’m fairly certain it is not an offence for a minor to purchase alcohol or tobacco.

It is an offence to supply alcohol or tobacco to a minor.


Did social media exist when you grew up?

Xanga and MySpace are what my friends had; yes

It's weird that none of your arguments or proposals hold accountable the responsible parties.

You want to force us to compromise when we were minding our own goddamn business.


Responsible parties like porn companies that distribute porn to minors? Parents are still accountable with age verification laws.

If parents suck at parenting, they will suffer.

If porn companies distribute porn to minors, which is illegal in many places such as the US, they will not suffer. Unless you start holding them accountable.


Every major adult content site has warnings that you have to be over 18 when you enter the site. Its extremely easy to use parental controls to block these sites for a kid, and parental controls don't require violating user privacy.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: