r/accelerate • u/stealthispost Acceleration: Light-speed | AI accelerationist • 2d ago
Sometimes you can just solve problems
— Singularity Memes
Source: https://x.com/singularitymeme/status/2111525621381640398
15
u/DivorcedGremlin1989 2d ago edited 2d ago
haha, linear algebra go brrrrrrr
Edit: I don't like Elon. I don't think this meme applies to Elon and his flying prototype at all.
7
3
u/Trick-Chocolate7330 2d ago
Imagine thinking Elon Stan’s are actual people and not racks of A100s
4
u/theimposingshadow Acceleration: Cruising | Tracks AI progress & longevity | XLR8 1d ago
Idk what this has to do with Elon, this is making fun of mathematicians who "didn't ask for this" ( math to be solved by AI)
3
u/DivorcedGremlin1989 2d ago
I didn't interpret this as having anything to do with Elon. It's a reaction to the math establishment complaining that they never asked for AI to solve difficult problems.
I don't give a fuck about Elon's penny circus demo.
2
u/Trick-Chocolate7330 2d ago
Given the flying content I assume this is about the car. I interpreted your comment to mean that the post was linear algebra ie a bot and was concurring on that assumption.
1
u/DivorcedGremlin1989 2d ago edited 2d ago
I'm not an Elon Stan and I'm struggling to see that the original creator of this meme created it with the car in mind. I didn't check twitter. I don't really think it applies to Elon. Like, call me when the flying cars are real, useful, and affordable.
My linear algebra comment was about a person saying that AI is just linear algebra. It's from a post floating around recently. There's a lot of emergent complexity from simple rules and simple operations. Like human beings. Or everything computers have ever produced.
-1
u/Trick-Chocolate7330 2d ago
Emergent complexity is not the same as the emergence of consciousness which is not just a more complex information processing system but introduces an entirely new order of normativity. No amount of linear algebra, on its own, will produce consciousness.
2
u/czmax 1d ago
“a new order of normativity”
i suggest you define consciousness and then you can argue why linear algebra can/can’t meet your definition. until then you’re just blathering. (in your case negativity — but it’d be blathering if used the same lack of clarity to assert ai was conscious).
0
u/Trick-Chocolate7330 1d ago
Minimally consciousness requires an internally purposive system capable of setting its own ends not merely in the instrumentalist sense of identifying means to given goals but in the normative sense of determining whether something counts as valuable for itself. It probably also requires some kind of will or ability to initiate action for the sake of reasons rather than merely following instructions. LLMs are patently incapable of either of these unless one so evacuates their concept that “purposiveness” and “volition” become meaningless abstractions, which, as above, would be unscientific and empirically unserious.
2
u/czmax 1d ago
Interesting. I’m not convinced human consciousness meets your expectations.
you should look up research around “post-hoc rationalization” and “The Consciousness as a Press Secretary”.
personally i think the line is around continuous thinking (not the current external stimulation requirement for inference in current models) and an ability to continuously learn (also not existent in the primarily LLM architectures).
1
u/DivorcedGremlin1989 2d ago
Do you think the rules and initial conditions that produced us are that complicated?
If your position on AI is 'well, it hasn't produced a sentient alien god yet,' mayyyyybe you need to take a sec, bolt down your goalposts, and look at how far they've moved in such a short period of time. God of gaps.
I'm not of the opinion that AI is fully sentient, but you would have to be willfully oblivious to think that we're not creating machines that can think and reason.
0
u/Trick-Chocolate7330 2d ago
It hasn’t even produced an animal yet.
Whatever we are doing is not producing conscious beings. Mayyyyybbe someday what we are doing now will be a small part of that. Intelligence is not consciousness
1
u/DivorcedGremlin1989 2d ago
Again. We're like 2 years away from 'AI can't even do addition' mockery, and now we're at 'claude, plz stop doing math, think of my PhD bro and the math younglings 😢'.
You must think human cognition is really special to feel this confident that sentience can only be produced by elements getting brute forced by entropy for a few billion years.
0
u/Trick-Chocolate7330 2d ago edited 2d ago
Human cognition is profoundly special. Possibly the most special thing in existence. To not see that reflects an enormous lack of empirical seriousness.
I have not said the only path to consciousness is entropy, though to underestimate the importance of entropy to consciousness would be a deep mistake. I have only said high dimensional vector spaces will not produce consciousness through “emergent complexity” (ie magic) in any amount of time.
→ More replies (0)
14
u/tinny66666 2d ago
It's not a great comparison, mostly based on the fact it's a fiction.
-4
u/stealthispost Acceleration: Light-speed | AI accelerationist 2d ago
How do you feel about hypotheticals and analogies? Do you dislike them?
15
u/Old_Restaurant_2216 2d ago
People like you are here just to stir the pot. This post is of no use to productive discussion.
I do not dislike analogies nor hypoteticals. I dislike people like you.
1
1
u/reasonmonkey 1d ago
People like you are so fucking ignorant it's hilarious.
Not gonna lie steal, I agree with the private chat: the sub has gotten too big. Maybe time to lock it.
2
u/stealthispost Acceleration: Light-speed | AI accelerationist 1d ago
yeah this thread is weird. maybe the analogy is too obtuse for them to get
2
u/stealthispost Acceleration: Light-speed | AI accelerationist 1d ago
oh! I had no idea what they were all talking about until I realised that some people thought this post was related to elon lol. it's related to terence tao et al
1
u/stealthispost Acceleration: Light-speed | AI accelerationist 1d ago
I had no idea what you were talking about until I realised that some people thought this post was related to elon lol. it's related to terence tao et al
4
u/ThatOtherOneReddit 2d ago
When you do such in an argument it's called painting a strawman or creating false equivalence. But whatever floats your boat chief
1
u/stealthispost Acceleration: Light-speed | AI accelerationist 1d ago
I had no idea what you were talking about until I realised that some people thought this post was related to elon lol. it's related to terence tao et al
18
u/Monte924 2d ago
Telsa did not build a flying car. They built a stripped down fancy stunt car that will never see the road. There are already better attempts at building a flying car out there being made by people who are actually serious, and not just grifting to boost stock prices.
1
u/Particular-Gap-6998 1d ago
I'm a little bummed about the flying part, not because I care whether it technically flies or doesn't fly and I'm not interested in arguing the semantics of the word 'flying'. I'm bummed that a lot of people seem to be overlooking the suction system and how a scaled down version of that technology could potentially prevent a lot of accidents on slippery roads
4
u/MrWigggles 2d ago
At the turn of the 19th century, there were various x like prizes, going for controlled sustained flight. There were lots of folks at the time trying to figure it out. So, physicists were actually for it.
Europeans didnt or may still dont acknowledge the wright brother as the first to have controlled powered flight. They used to give that honor a french ballonist, I think.
Even though roughly 10 years later, fighter bi-planes would being doing tours in the turning war during ww1.
The tesla demo, while cool car parkour was just a dog and pony show. It was meant to try and spike stock prices. It wasnt a concept car. Its never mean to be be used in any actual model. And it cant have an pratical use for a car. As the lost internal volume of the car to the air tanks means your car just turns into a thing that moes around air tanks, instead of a car.
1
u/Trick-Chocolate7330 2d ago
I actually don’t think it was meant to spike stock prices because anyone with a brain can easily see it’s actually terrible news for the stock that they don’t unveil something actual marketable like Chinese EVs. I think it was precisely for this bot war to try and make it seem like the obvious economic clusterfuck that is maga musk is actually cool revolutionary tech that will make our dreams come true before the midterms.
7
4
u/Academic-Ant5505 2d ago
Flying hadn't been invented yet. Rocket boosters have. Put them on a fridge and no difference to what was showcased the other day
4
u/Some_Anonim_Coder 2d ago
With Wright plane there is more historical dunk on luddites: experts were saying heavier-than-air flying things were impossible months before takeoff. And after takeoff they proceeded to say it will never be of any use. Those luddites were members of academies, leading physicists of the time
1
u/IllLeadership8177 2d ago
Ironically, we do have quite a lot of guardrails and rules around aviation. Doesn't mean we should slow down necessarily, but we absolutely should at least have serious considerations about more safety oversight. There's very much a world where accelerationism and AI being run fully or partly in tandem with government are compatible, although I don't necessarily want government to have that much power either.
2
1
u/Stunning_Monk_6724 The Singularity is nigh 1d ago
This meme can easily be applied to the mathematics debate as well. Elon's roadster will also see some very cool implementations in the future.
I'd say just celebrate progress and be happy about it.
1
u/doiwantacookie 2d ago
The analogy would be if ai dropped a verifiable grand unified theory of physics. But even then I’m not sure physicists would care the same way math people do.
49
u/Networker926 2d ago
At this point I'm convinced russian bots have identified this flying car thing as a wedge topic for this subreddit and dialing up the rage.