If this is the way to superintelligence, it remains a bizarre one. “This is back to a million monkeys typing for a million years generating the works of Shakespeare,” Emily Bender told me. But OpenAI’s technology effectively crunches those years down to seconds. A company blog boasts that an o1 model scored better than most humans on a recent coding test that allowed participants to submit 50 possible solutions to each problem—but only when o1 was allowed 10,000 submissions instead. No human could come up with that many possibilities in a reasonable length of time, which is exactly the point. To OpenAI, unlimited time and resources are an advantage that its hardware-grounded models have over biology. Not even two weeks after the launch of the o1 preview, the start-up presented plans to build data centers that would each require the power generated by approximately five large nuclear reactors, enough for almost 3 million homes.

https://archive.is/xUJMG

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    14 days ago

    You wouldn’t need infinite time if you had infinite monkeys.

    Obviously, but as I wrote BOTH are impossible, so it’s irrelevant. I just didn’t think I’d have to explain WHY infinite monkeys is impossible, while some might think the universe is infinite also in time, which it is not.

    I also already wrote that if you have an infinite string everything is contained in it.
    But even with infinite moneys it’s not instant, because technically each monkey needs to finish a page.

    But I understand what you mean, and that’s exactly why the theorem is so stupid IMO. You could also have 1 monkey infinite time.
    But both are still impossible.

    When I say it’s stupid, I don’t mean as a thought experiment which is the purpose of it. The stupid part is when people think they can use it as an analogy or example to describe something

    • Sheldan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      14 days ago

      It’s a theorem. It’s theoretical. This is like complaining about the 20 watermelon example being unrealistic: that’s not what it is about.

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        14 days ago

        It’s OK it exist, it’s a thought that is curious enough. I’d even go so far and say it can have an educational function for children.
        I just don’t get why some people seem to think it’s relevant in so many situations where clearly it’s not.