Slovakian-Canadian AI researcher (born 1986)
Slovakian-Canadian AI researcher (born 1986)
Born: October 23, 1986
Showing quotes in randomized order to avoid selection bias. Click Popular for most popular quotes.
Sharing an interesting recent conversation on AI's impact on the economy.
AI has been compared to various historical precedents: electricity, industrial revolution, etc., I think the strongest analogy is that of AI as a new computing paradigm (Software 2.0) because both are fundamentally about the automation of digital information processing.
If you were to forecast the impact of computing on the job market in ~1980s, the most predictive feature of a task/job you'd look at is to what extent the algorithm of it is fixed, i.e. are you just mechanically transforming information according to rote, easy to specify rules (e.g. typing, bookkeeping, human calculators, etc.)? Back then, this was the class of programs that the computing capability of that era allowed us to write (by hand, manually).
With AI now, we are able to write new programs that we could never hope to write by hand before. We do it by specifying objectives (e.g. classification accuracy, reward functions), and we search the program space via gradient descent to find neural networks that work well against that objective. This is my Software 2.0 blog post from a while ago. In this new programming paradigm then, the new most predictive feature to look at is verifiability. If a task/job is verifiable, then it is optimizable directly or via reinforcement learning, and a neural net can be trained to work extremely well. It's about to what extent an AI can "practice" something. The environment has to be resettable (you can start a new attempt), efficient (a lot attempts can be made), and rewardable (there is some automated process to reward any specific attempt that was made).
The more a task/job is verifiable, the more amenable it is to automation in the new programming paradigm. If it is not verifiable, it has to fall out from neural net magic of generalization fingers crossed, or via weaker means like imitation. This is what's driving the "jagged" frontier of progress in LLMs. Tasks that are verifiable progress rapidly, including possibly beyond the ability of top experts (e.g. math, code, amount of time spent watching videos, anything that looks like puzzles with correct answers), while many others lag by comparison (creative, strategic, tasks that combine real-world knowledge, state, context and common sense).
Software 1.0 easily automates what you can specify.
Software 2.0 easily automates what you can verify.
Don't think of LLMs as entities but as simulators. For example, when exploring a topic, don't ask:
"What do you think about xyz"?
There is no "you". Next time try:
"What would be a good group of people to explore xyz? What would they say?"
The LLM can channel/simulate many perspectives but it hasn't "thought about" xyz for a while and over time and formed its own opinions in the way we're used to. If you force it via the use of "you", it will give you something by adopting a personality embedding vector implied by the statistics of its finetuning data and then simulate that. It's fine to do, but there is a lot less mystique to it than I find people naively attribute to "asking an AI".
I've never felt this much behind as a programmer. The profession is being dramatically refactored as the bits contributed by the programmer are increasingly sparse and between. I have a sense that I could be 10X more powerful if I just properly string together what has become available over the last ~year and a failure to claim the boost feels decidedly like skill issue. There's a new programmable layer of abstraction to master (in addition to the usual layers below) involving agents, subagents, their prompts, contexts, memory, modes, permissions, tools, plugins, skills, hooks, MCP, LSP, slash commands, workflows, IDE integrations, and a need to build an all-encompassing mental model for strengths and pitfalls of fundamentally stochastic, fallible, unintelligible and changing entities suddenly intermingled with what used to be good old fashioned engineering. Clearly some powerful alien tool was handed around except it comes with no manual and everyone has to figure out how to hold it and operate it, while the resulting magnitude 9 earthquake is rocking the profession. Roll up your sleeves to not fall behind.
I love the expression “food for thought” as a concrete, mysterious cognitive capability humans experience but LLMs have no equivalent for.
Definition: “something worth thinking about or considering, like a mental meal that nourishes your mind with ideas, insights, or issues that require deeper reflection. It's used for topics that challenge your perspective, offer new understanding, or make you ponder important questions, acting as intellectual stimulation.”
So in LLM speak it’s a sequence of tokens such that when used as prompt for chain of thought, the samples are rewarding to attend over, via some yet undiscovered intrinsic reward function. Obsessed with what form it takes. Food for thought.
I am unreasonably excited about self-driving. It will be the first technology in many decades to visibly terraform outdoor physical spaces and way of life. Less parked cars. Less parking lots. Much greater safety for people in and out of cars. Less noise pollution. More space reclaimed for humans. Human brain cycles and attention capital freed up from “lane following” to other pursuits. Cheaper, faster, programmable delivery of physical items and goods. It won’t happen overnight but there will be the era before and the era after.
The future expands the variance of human condition a lot more than it drags its mean. This is an empirical observation with interesting extrapolations.
The past is well-approximated as a population of farmers, living similar lives w.r.t. upbringing, knowledge, activities, ideals, aspirations, etc.
The future trends to include all of:
- the transhumanists who "ascend" with neuralinks etc., and the Amish living ~19th century life.
- those who "worship" ideals of religion, technology, knowledge, wealth, fitness, community, nature, art, ...
- those exploring externally into the stars, those exploring internally into minds (drugs++), or those who disappear into digital VR worlds
- those who date a different partner every day and those who are monogamous for life
- those who travel broadly and those who stay in one location their entire life
- those in megacities and those off-the-grid
For almost any question about a dimension of human condition, the answer trends not to any specific thing but to "all of the above". And to an extreme diversity of memetics. At least, this feels like the outcome in free societies that trend to abundance. I don't know what it feels like to live in such a society but it's interesting to think about.