Is anyone else reading Sebastian Mallaby’s new book about Demis and Deepmind: The Infinity Machine: Demis Hassabis, DeepMind, and the Quest for Superintelligence? It’s pretty good, and goes a lot into his background before Deepmind (chess kid, developing games at bullfrog, CS at Cambridge, bullfrog again, games startup…). He’s certainly an interesting guy, and as others are pointing out, more thoughtful and earnest than your average tech industry leader. One pleasant thing that comes across in the book is how he resisted the allure of moving to Silicon Valley and wanted to keep Deepmind in London, where he still lives.
I hadn’t really appreciated before the connection between his chess and game industry experience and the early reinforcement learning work that put Deepmind on the map, e.g. the Atari game AI demos, AlphaGo, Alphazero, etc. There is a fascinating thread there and it’s certainly a case of the right person with the right mix of past experience and vision being able to pick exactly the right problems to focus on to move technology forward.
The book has a few flaws: it’s maybe a little too uncritical of its subject. But that’s almost a given with books of this kind where the author gets a lot of access.
I'm enjoying it. It's wild to realize that I spent countless hours playing Theme Park when I was around 10 years old, and Demis had been a big contributor to the game when he wasn't much older.
Also I don't really care that it's a bit of a cheerleader for DeepMind and Hassabis. Substantive criticism is good, but too often with these kind of books it feels like an editor told the author that the book needs something negative and the author has to inflate an issue to meet the requirement.
The author did give him credit for the whole you-can-make-the-fries-super-salty-to-increase-demand-for-drinks thing in Theme Park, which I remember vividly. (I, too, dropped many hours on Theme Park as a kid.) Although I imagine there’s about half a dozen people who lay claim to that idea.
I did not read this book but I read another one by Mallaby about hedge fund managers. It was pretty biased to the point that I did not recognize one of the managers I knew about (Michael Steinhardt). The guy who himself confessed in a lot of his past shady stuff in his 2001 book. Mallaby's book from 2010 did not bring up any of that shady stuff. It was like reading about a totally different person.
Of course, I am not trying to prove moral equivalency between Steinhardt and Hassabis. But it is worth keeping this in mind when reading something by Mallaby. Do not expect completeness or impartiality.
Bro, are we reading the same book? The book is totally uncritical of the subject and paints him like the second coming of christ. It feels like GDM wanted a canonization of Hassabis, and the writer simply obliged. Also, how does everything that GDM did keep coming back to some vague ideas in the guy's thesis? He is a great leader, no doubt, but him winning the Nobel Prize was just a huge joke.
Out of all the heads of AI orgs out there, Dennis is the best, but the book did him a disservice by painting an unrealistically sunny picture of him as some kind of visionary figure.
Not a “bro” (there are women on this site you know), and perhaps you’re missing the British understatement in my “maybe a little too uncritical of its subject” line. Obviously the book is totally biased in favor of Hassabis and Deepmind. That doesn’t mean it’s not an interesting read and that doesn’t mean the connection between his experience in the games industry and Deepmind’s early success isn’t there. And I think the book does highlight his most critical skill, which is projecting a Reality Distortion Field to get other smart people to believe in things he has in mind that are still very speculative bets.
Like I already said, bias is inevitable in a book where the writer gets access (to the point of interviewing Hassabis in a North London pub every month), but the benefit to readers is that you do get a lot more insight into what makes the guy tick than you would in a book written by an outsider. I certainly learned a lot and just because I did doesn’t mean I’m buying into some cult of tech hero worship.
Oh wow, you blow my mind with your linguistic erudition; I had no idea it was possible to use male-gendered terms in a generic way! Well, all is forgiven, then.
Seriously, just... don't? This isn’t some woke political thing and I dislike excessive policing of language but damn it, there are limits. "Guys" I'll let pass no problem, maybe even "dude" too on a good day. At "bro" I will take a stand, thank you very much.
You're just showing your age. I can't stand it but my daughter says "Bro" to me and my wife. As a 40 year old Californian I've come to accept it as this generation's "dude" or "man" (as in "man, that sucks"), sadly.
I'm genuinely fascinated and confused by what's going on in this thread, as apparently British and American English speakers misunderstand each other.
If I understand correctly, we've got:
libraryofbabel says "maybe a little too uncritical" ... but that was supposed to be British snark that actually meant "it's a big problem that it's not at all critical"
Then, moab says "Bro" as a pejorative, because he took the original "uncritical" comment as literal rather than sarcastic...
And then libraryofbabel objects to "bro" not because it was used as a pejorative (which maybe she doesn't understand that it is in this context?), but because she interprets it as gendered (which maybe it is in British usage?)
I think libraryofbabel and moab are actually in agreement about the book, and but have both misunderstood the other's sarcasm. Maybe we really do need the /s usage.
Heh I thought like you until we had kids. The 6th graders now are all "bro this," "bro that." And it's not even the usual English "bro," it's a slightly Aussified "broah" like it has a weird umlaut. I resigned to just roll with it. "Begging the question," though, that's a hill I will die on.
I am still in my bed of pain, and you summoned me from the after-public-life of attempted recovery.
> I had no idea it was possible to use male-gendered terms in a generic way
This is just sarcastic, right? "Male gendering" is just a use, no gender is involved in plain terming (outside the obvious exception of intentional gendering)... "Wo-man" specifies "/sensitive/ man", but there is no gender in "man", in "having a mind"... "Human", i.e. "heartly", is not gendered - yet some languages typically correlate derivations like French "homme" with male in default understanding... This should be clear, but just to be sure.
> bro
To the best of my recollection, in the IE roots "brother" is "who assists in the rites" - not necessarily gendered. (Some add that the idea is "supporter".) The suggestion from the term is that of the "brotherhood" - which is not gendered (the idea of fraternity is not gendered). "Sister" should instead mean "welcome" (to some studies): not gendered in this case; others interpret it as gendered ("one's girl" - this is what Etymonline proposes).
> "Guys" I'll let pass no problem, maybe even "dude" too on a good day
That's odd. You wouldn't mind being called "a generic Italo- or possibly French ("Guido" or "Guy")"*; you wouldn't mind being called a "doodle", which has a connotation of "simpleton" - and you refuse "brother", which basically means to imply "getting close to you" (as an opening from the speaker)?
* Edit: Yes, also the explosion of the term and the non-national derivation from "Guy Fawkes" (from the celebration that involved displays of Guy Fawkes ragdolls) should be remembered. Still not precisely complimentary, I'd say.
Language is intersubjective (its meaning is in the minds of the participants). Referring to the history or composition of a word is interesting but entirely insufficient to justify its use.
I often quote what we do in the server-client relation: interpret loosely but express correctly.
It is not just a way of communication: language is one of the factors behind thought: hence, its care must be cared for and promoted.
Sure, also the context and the communication need have a weight. But without compromising into conformism (as in, "doing it wrong because people do").
> its meaning is in the minds of the participants
Awareness has its benefits (the greatest understatement I have ever written); licence has its costs.
> entirely insufficient to justify its use
Why. The competent will always use tools differently than the layman and the amateur. Again the server client (and always the need of good thought in the background): you will express as best as you can and try to be clear (communicatively efficient) within that framework.
Now duly supposing you are not ironic (all ages and paths come here):
You call people "brother"; "brother" means "supportive" (and is used for "openness", "closeness"); if you want to be close and supporting to people, if you want to be an asset (not a liability), you will have to cultivate yourself, to get the wisdom required. Erudition is not yet wisdom, but coupled with the good intention to learn the important things it surely helps.
>Dennis is the best, but the book did him a disservice by painting an unrealistically sunny picture of him as some kind of visionary figure.
Wait, 'unrealistically sunny'? You better not be talking about Dennis from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, because we're all screwed if so.
Then again, the western AI landscape has become somewhat stale recently. Claude and Gemini may have cute names, but they all pale in comparison to The Golden God.
People doing frontier research in knowledge representation & reasoning are worrying that soon, with the merging of LLM and knowledge graphs, automated 'everything' from research to production, will be possible. This implies that 'human cleverness' will get you nowhere any more and the only limits will then be computation - a resource Big Tech is hard at work completely walling normal people out of.
What exactly is 'merging' here? Existing formal knowledgebases with LLMs? I don't think that's anywhere near human knowledge and thus ability to make novel connections. And autoformalization is... basically not happening soon, so we're still ultimately bottlenecked there.
How would someone with an intellect like Demis Hassabis think?
I want to learn to think more like him. What differences between his way of thinking and mine create such a powerful gap? If I could understand those differences, I might also understand how to narrow that gap. And if we could identify the causes of that gap, perhaps humans in general could develop much further.
I truly envy his intelligence. When I read his writings, I can see fragments of knowledge that he cannot hide, and it makes me think: I want to become like that too.
> What differences between his way of thinking and [somebody else's]
Presumably sophistication ("sophisticated" as "complex" as opposed to "naïve" as in "less mature").
> If I could understand those differences, I might also understand how to narrow that gap
You narrow that gap through application on improved mental habits as aided by the leading examples of your good acquaintances (especially through reading). Just discipline yourself to think in a better way.
--
Edit: oh, since I had to return out of a linguistic matter: examine thought and its tools - language is one, logic of course another, aletics a paramount one... Refine all your tools. Learn to see better and better.
I think he's just wired differently. Raw IQ is usually overrated IMO, but this is one of the cases where I believe the significant difference is critical.
Critical but maybe not sufficient. Hassabis claims to manage two separate workdays every day, the first spent in meetings in Deepmind's office, the second until late at night studying new papers. So not just high IQ but incredible energy too. And finally, as I understand, a highly competitive attitude.
If you're interested in better thinking, go read a bit about Charlie Munger - he's gone now, but he was thinking about thinking for quite a long time and has some good advice.
Farnam Street used to be a very good blog too, albeit it feels much more 'commercial' for the past 5 years.
I suspect Demis 'gapped' you structurally (upbringing, early decisions, luck, positioning), moreso than via intelligence, which doesn't actually vary that widely in humans.
Even if you take IQ, a 2-sigma event on that distribution is 'only' around 130. A 130 outpaces a 100, sure, but it's hardly full on dominance in most tasks.
Certainly much less powerful than just having rich or pushy parents.
> The CV of e.g. IQ is only 15%. That's in line with other 'natural' attributes of humans, but not compared to something like family wealth or background. From a quick Google, wealth is 700% in the US? Income also same OOM.
I'm generally suspicious of IQ but still - 2 standard deviations above average would include about 2.5% of the population. Hassabis is in a significantly more exclusive slice.
His parents weren't particularly wealthy. More likely: he is exceptionally intelligent, hardworking, visionary, and grew up in an environment which fostered those attributes in a precocious child.
The CV of e.g. IQ is only 15%. That's in line with other 'natural' attributes of humans, but not compared to something like family wealth or background. From a quick Google, wealth is 700% in the US? Income also same OOM.
I think you've just got perceptual tuning for the human to human context. It's like how human faces that are 5% different can be very obvious to us, but it's much harder to tell (for example) two cats apart at the same difference level. All of your adaptive pressures are pulling in that direction.
But at a system-scale view of intelligence, humans are squashed together and it plays a pretty small role on outcomes. You should much prefer being rich than smart if your goal is 'success' by most metrics.
"I think you've just got perceptual tuning for the human to human context"
Not at all. I have to learn how to talk very differently to people on both ends of the IQ range. Wealth is a terrible proxy for IQ because it doesn't actually correlate very much due to accidents of birth and interests. Just look at Terrance Tao vs Trump's idiot sons.
Well I feel the same way about Kim Kardasian. So I get what you are saying about the gap and finding ways to shrink it cause I want to become like that too.
I want to know about the political infighting between the TPU team, Google Brain team and DeepMind. And the famous tweet of Nando De Freitas on DeepSeek
There's really a few people leading the AI charge that I think would actually embody the kind of character needed for such a role than Demis. I don't know if he's fooling the public and deeply inside represents a person more aligned with Altman; but I'm really happy he's at the top with the public information I've seen/read about him. I'm hoping Google wins the race and builds a moat so that the other more nefarious leaders get dumpstered.
It’s plausible he is as imagined. But selling to Google makes that irrelevant. His job is to serve their bottom line and they’ve done a lot of work on ads etc. He won’t maintain control.
He was even bouncing around as a teenager at Bullfrog back in their glory days, and the noise around him then was that he was clearly going to go on to great things.
I don't agree with everything he says, but he's obviously an enormously deeper thinker than the likes of Altman.
It's not "Alphabet". Alphabet doesn't have a brain. It's people steering these companies. If our choice is between one megacorp with a proud and obvious narcissistic psychopath and one that has Demis, I'd rather go with the other.
The aggregate effect of the chemical gradients in the antheap controls the ants. It's similar in these giant companies where the combination of all the incentives makes for a gradient towards certain outcomes. I can see little intentionality or individual agency in what the likes of Google have produced in the last two decades.
Honestly, Hassabis and Amodei are the 2 last beacon of hopes for me in the AI race. What they have for them is that they both are scientists and not 'business-bros'. But are they genuine? Will they not be corrupted by power or pressure from shareholders?
The main problem is that in capitalism private companies have only the mission to serve their shareholders/owners.
Public institutions have the mission to serve the public.
The only real solution is to make AI a public good/utility which should be regulated on an international level and overseen by trustworthy institutions.
I agree with your feeling about Hassabis, but Dario gives me the creeps. YMMV of course. But I always have to think about him, grinning like a smurf at the WEF in Davos , telling everyone that their jobs will inevitably be eliminated by a machine of his creation. But that he is team human of course and deeply concerned (hahaha). In some weird sense, I even like Altman more.
You prefer Altman -- someone who will lie and cheat and backstab and work on autonomous military drones and video generators and adult chatbots, give his entire life and being, in order to amass as much power and influence as he can -- because you don't like Dario's smile?
I don't know any of them personally, so its all based on feelings anyway, created by internet consumption and the opinion of others. So who am I to judge anyway?
However, I have a weird feeling about Dario and every time I see his interviews, I get the creeps and he begins to really annoy me. And yes. His smurfy smile is certainly a factor, yes.
What irks me about Amodei is his insistence in his public communication and speeches for the role of AI in defense and in providing a strategic advantage over "the enemies of the US". Not sure how much it is political talk to appease this particular administration but it seems more prominent and reiterated than I'd like.
> The only real solution is to make AI a public good/utility which should be regulated on an international level and overseen by trustworthy institutions.
There is a precedent for this in nuclear weapons. It did not work. All it takes is a sufficiently resourced nation-state to defect from whatever agreements there are and the whole thing collapses. If the incentives point toward doing so, it is an inevitable outcome.
There was no nuclear weapon used in warfare anymore since WW II. I think the regulation and oversight worked incredibly well over the past 70-80 years, despite the game-theoretic challenge you mention.
I'm referring specifically to preventing additional countries from becoming nuclear powers. There was massive effort and coordination expended to this end. It failed repeatedly. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was signed in 1968. 5 more countries armed themselves thereafter.
Is anyone else reading Sebastian Mallaby’s new book about Demis and Deepmind: The Infinity Machine: Demis Hassabis, DeepMind, and the Quest for Superintelligence? It’s pretty good, and goes a lot into his background before Deepmind (chess kid, developing games at bullfrog, CS at Cambridge, bullfrog again, games startup…). He’s certainly an interesting guy, and as others are pointing out, more thoughtful and earnest than your average tech industry leader. One pleasant thing that comes across in the book is how he resisted the allure of moving to Silicon Valley and wanted to keep Deepmind in London, where he still lives.
I hadn’t really appreciated before the connection between his chess and game industry experience and the early reinforcement learning work that put Deepmind on the map, e.g. the Atari game AI demos, AlphaGo, Alphazero, etc. There is a fascinating thread there and it’s certainly a case of the right person with the right mix of past experience and vision being able to pick exactly the right problems to focus on to move technology forward.
The book has a few flaws: it’s maybe a little too uncritical of its subject. But that’s almost a given with books of this kind where the author gets a lot of access.
I'm enjoying it. It's wild to realize that I spent countless hours playing Theme Park when I was around 10 years old, and Demis had been a big contributor to the game when he wasn't much older.
Also I don't really care that it's a bit of a cheerleader for DeepMind and Hassabis. Substantive criticism is good, but too often with these kind of books it feels like an editor told the author that the book needs something negative and the author has to inflate an issue to meet the requirement.
The author did give him credit for the whole you-can-make-the-fries-super-salty-to-increase-demand-for-drinks thing in Theme Park, which I remember vividly. (I, too, dropped many hours on Theme Park as a kid.) Although I imagine there’s about half a dozen people who lay claim to that idea.
I did not read this book but I read another one by Mallaby about hedge fund managers. It was pretty biased to the point that I did not recognize one of the managers I knew about (Michael Steinhardt). The guy who himself confessed in a lot of his past shady stuff in his 2001 book. Mallaby's book from 2010 did not bring up any of that shady stuff. It was like reading about a totally different person.
Of course, I am not trying to prove moral equivalency between Steinhardt and Hassabis. But it is worth keeping this in mind when reading something by Mallaby. Do not expect completeness or impartiality.
Bro, are we reading the same book? The book is totally uncritical of the subject and paints him like the second coming of christ. It feels like GDM wanted a canonization of Hassabis, and the writer simply obliged. Also, how does everything that GDM did keep coming back to some vague ideas in the guy's thesis? He is a great leader, no doubt, but him winning the Nobel Prize was just a huge joke.
Out of all the heads of AI orgs out there, Dennis is the best, but the book did him a disservice by painting an unrealistically sunny picture of him as some kind of visionary figure.
Not a “bro” (there are women on this site you know), and perhaps you’re missing the British understatement in my “maybe a little too uncritical of its subject” line. Obviously the book is totally biased in favor of Hassabis and Deepmind. That doesn’t mean it’s not an interesting read and that doesn’t mean the connection between his experience in the games industry and Deepmind’s early success isn’t there. And I think the book does highlight his most critical skill, which is projecting a Reality Distortion Field to get other smart people to believe in things he has in mind that are still very speculative bets.
Like I already said, bias is inevitable in a book where the writer gets access (to the point of interviewing Hassabis in a North London pub every month), but the benefit to readers is that you do get a lot more insight into what makes the guy tick than you would in a book written by an outsider. I certainly learned a lot and just because I did doesn’t mean I’m buying into some cult of tech hero worship.
"bro" doesn't mean male in this context. It's just a general exclamation bro
Tell it like it is, sis.
The problem with "sister" is that it is ambiguous, pls. see my parallel post.
Oh wow, you blow my mind with your linguistic erudition; I had no idea it was possible to use male-gendered terms in a generic way! Well, all is forgiven, then.
Seriously, just... don't? This isn’t some woke political thing and I dislike excessive policing of language but damn it, there are limits. "Guys" I'll let pass no problem, maybe even "dude" too on a good day. At "bro" I will take a stand, thank you very much.
You're just showing your age. I can't stand it but my daughter says "Bro" to me and my wife. As a 40 year old Californian I've come to accept it as this generation's "dude" or "man" (as in "man, that sucks"), sadly.
I feel like replying to someone who is being called something they don't want with "you're actually just old!" may not be a winning strategy
I'm genuinely fascinated and confused by what's going on in this thread, as apparently British and American English speakers misunderstand each other.
If I understand correctly, we've got: libraryofbabel says "maybe a little too uncritical" ... but that was supposed to be British snark that actually meant "it's a big problem that it's not at all critical"
Then, moab says "Bro" as a pejorative, because he took the original "uncritical" comment as literal rather than sarcastic...
And then libraryofbabel objects to "bro" not because it was used as a pejorative (which maybe she doesn't understand that it is in this context?), but because she interprets it as gendered (which maybe it is in British usage?)
I think libraryofbabel and moab are actually in agreement about the book, and but have both misunderstood the other's sarcasm. Maybe we really do need the /s usage.
Heh I thought like you until we had kids. The 6th graders now are all "bro this," "bro that." And it's not even the usual English "bro," it's a slightly Aussified "broah" like it has a weird umlaut. I resigned to just roll with it. "Begging the question," though, that's a hill I will die on.
I am still in my bed of pain, and you summoned me from the after-public-life of attempted recovery.
> I had no idea it was possible to use male-gendered terms in a generic way
This is just sarcastic, right? "Male gendering" is just a use, no gender is involved in plain terming (outside the obvious exception of intentional gendering)... "Wo-man" specifies "/sensitive/ man", but there is no gender in "man", in "having a mind"... "Human", i.e. "heartly", is not gendered - yet some languages typically correlate derivations like French "homme" with male in default understanding... This should be clear, but just to be sure.
> bro
To the best of my recollection, in the IE roots "brother" is "who assists in the rites" - not necessarily gendered. (Some add that the idea is "supporter".) The suggestion from the term is that of the "brotherhood" - which is not gendered (the idea of fraternity is not gendered). "Sister" should instead mean "welcome" (to some studies): not gendered in this case; others interpret it as gendered ("one's girl" - this is what Etymonline proposes).
> "Guys" I'll let pass no problem, maybe even "dude" too on a good day
That's odd. You wouldn't mind being called "a generic Italo- or possibly French ("Guido" or "Guy")"*; you wouldn't mind being called a "doodle", which has a connotation of "simpleton" - and you refuse "brother", which basically means to imply "getting close to you" (as an opening from the speaker)?
* Edit: Yes, also the explosion of the term and the non-national derivation from "Guy Fawkes" (from the celebration that involved displays of Guy Fawkes ragdolls) should be remembered. Still not precisely complimentary, I'd say.
Language is intersubjective (its meaning is in the minds of the participants). Referring to the history or composition of a word is interesting but entirely insufficient to justify its use.
> intersubjective
I often quote what we do in the server-client relation: interpret loosely but express correctly.
It is not just a way of communication: language is one of the factors behind thought: hence, its care must be cared for and promoted.
Sure, also the context and the communication need have a weight. But without compromising into conformism (as in, "doing it wrong because people do").
> its meaning is in the minds of the participants
Awareness has its benefits (the greatest understatement I have ever written); licence has its costs.
> entirely insufficient to justify its use
Why. The competent will always use tools differently than the layman and the amateur. Again the server client (and always the need of good thought in the background): you will express as best as you can and try to be clear (communicatively efficient) within that framework.
what does erudition mean?
That was delightful.
Now duly supposing you are not ironic (all ages and paths come here):
You call people "brother"; "brother" means "supportive" (and is used for "openness", "closeness"); if you want to be close and supporting to people, if you want to be an asset (not a liability), you will have to cultivate yourself, to get the wisdom required. Erudition is not yet wisdom, but coupled with the good intention to learn the important things it surely helps.
how about Güey?
>Dennis is the best, but the book did him a disservice by painting an unrealistically sunny picture of him as some kind of visionary figure.
Wait, 'unrealistically sunny'? You better not be talking about Dennis from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, because we're all screwed if so.
Then again, the western AI landscape has become somewhat stale recently. Claude and Gemini may have cute names, but they all pale in comparison to The Golden God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_Always_Sunny_in_Philade...
^ Educational resources for the ignorant that instead prefer to discuss the merits of the term "bro", at length.
Yeah hero worship and making into a villan is all part and parcel of the Nerd community these days
Guys hes just one smart guy who got placed in a good moment in the AI technological revolution- hes def not the second coming of Christ
People doing frontier research in knowledge representation & reasoning are worrying that soon, with the merging of LLM and knowledge graphs, automated 'everything' from research to production, will be possible. This implies that 'human cleverness' will get you nowhere any more and the only limits will then be computation - a resource Big Tech is hard at work completely walling normal people out of.
What exactly is 'merging' here? Existing formal knowledgebases with LLMs? I don't think that's anywhere near human knowledge and thus ability to make novel connections. And autoformalization is... basically not happening soon, so we're still ultimately bottlenecked there.
They're worried about the next step, when we haven't quite digested the current step?
Always. Rushing is the chief sacrament in the religion of speed. Get there before the other guy or get got.
This is where I thought Cyc might contribute.
Would Cyc count as a "knowledge graph" that the poster is referring to?
Uh, any sources on that?
If you really want to see Demis shine watch The Thinking Game (on Deep Mind YT channel).
Recommended!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d95J8yzvjbQ
How would someone with an intellect like Demis Hassabis think?
I want to learn to think more like him. What differences between his way of thinking and mine create such a powerful gap? If I could understand those differences, I might also understand how to narrow that gap. And if we could identify the causes of that gap, perhaps humans in general could develop much further.
I truly envy his intelligence. When I read his writings, I can see fragments of knowledge that he cannot hide, and it makes me think: I want to become like that too.
> What differences between his way of thinking and [somebody else's]
Presumably sophistication ("sophisticated" as "complex" as opposed to "naïve" as in "less mature").
> If I could understand those differences, I might also understand how to narrow that gap
You narrow that gap through application on improved mental habits as aided by the leading examples of your good acquaintances (especially through reading). Just discipline yourself to think in a better way.
--
Edit: oh, since I had to return out of a linguistic matter: examine thought and its tools - language is one, logic of course another, aletics a paramount one... Refine all your tools. Learn to see better and better.
I think he's just wired differently. Raw IQ is usually overrated IMO, but this is one of the cases where I believe the significant difference is critical.
Critical but maybe not sufficient. Hassabis claims to manage two separate workdays every day, the first spent in meetings in Deepmind's office, the second until late at night studying new papers. So not just high IQ but incredible energy too. And finally, as I understand, a highly competitive attitude.
If you're interested in better thinking, go read a bit about Charlie Munger - he's gone now, but he was thinking about thinking for quite a long time and has some good advice.
Farnam Street used to be a very good blog too, albeit it feels much more 'commercial' for the past 5 years.
I suspect Demis 'gapped' you structurally (upbringing, early decisions, luck, positioning), moreso than via intelligence, which doesn't actually vary that widely in humans.
Doesn't vary that widely in humans? Do you have a source for that?
Even if you take IQ, a 2-sigma event on that distribution is 'only' around 130. A 130 outpaces a 100, sure, but it's hardly full on dominance in most tasks.
Certainly much less powerful than just having rich or pushy parents.
> The CV of e.g. IQ is only 15%. That's in line with other 'natural' attributes of humans, but not compared to something like family wealth or background. From a quick Google, wealth is 700% in the US? Income also same OOM.
I'm generally suspicious of IQ but still - 2 standard deviations above average would include about 2.5% of the population. Hassabis is in a significantly more exclusive slice.
His parents weren't particularly wealthy. More likely: he is exceptionally intelligent, hardworking, visionary, and grew up in an environment which fostered those attributes in a precocious child.
all being equal, a 130 will completely trounce a 100 on almost every mental task. what are you talking about? do you honestly think otherwise?
Intelligence varies incredibly wildly in humans. So much so I think IQ might be a logarithmic scale.
The CV of e.g. IQ is only 15%. That's in line with other 'natural' attributes of humans, but not compared to something like family wealth or background. From a quick Google, wealth is 700% in the US? Income also same OOM.
I worked in a retail PC sales and repair store and the gulf between the stupidest and smartest customers was enormous.
I think you've just got perceptual tuning for the human to human context. It's like how human faces that are 5% different can be very obvious to us, but it's much harder to tell (for example) two cats apart at the same difference level. All of your adaptive pressures are pulling in that direction.
But at a system-scale view of intelligence, humans are squashed together and it plays a pretty small role on outcomes. You should much prefer being rich than smart if your goal is 'success' by most metrics.
"I think you've just got perceptual tuning for the human to human context"
Not at all. I have to learn how to talk very differently to people on both ends of the IQ range. Wealth is a terrible proxy for IQ because it doesn't actually correlate very much due to accidents of birth and interests. Just look at Terrance Tao vs Trump's idiot sons.
Luck of the draw. Both in genetics, plus family resources & mentality when growing up.
Cannot become like that unfortunately. But hey, you are great already, and you can become even better. Your own version.
Well I feel the same way about Kim Kardasian. So I get what you are saying about the gap and finding ways to shrink it cause I want to become like that too.
I want to know about the political infighting between the TPU team, Google Brain team and DeepMind. And the famous tweet of Nando De Freitas on DeepSeek
There's really a few people leading the AI charge that I think would actually embody the kind of character needed for such a role than Demis. I don't know if he's fooling the public and deeply inside represents a person more aligned with Altman; but I'm really happy he's at the top with the public information I've seen/read about him. I'm hoping Google wins the race and builds a moat so that the other more nefarious leaders get dumpstered.
It’s plausible he is as imagined. But selling to Google makes that irrelevant. His job is to serve their bottom line and they’ve done a lot of work on ads etc. He won’t maintain control.
He was even bouncing around as a teenager at Bullfrog back in their glory days, and the noise around him then was that he was clearly going to go on to great things.
I don't agree with everything he says, but he's obviously an enormously deeper thinker than the likes of Altman.
One of my coworkers on Battle.net at Blizzard previously was at Bullfrog when Demis was there, and had only good things to say about him.
I was at Lionhead for a while and he was very highly regarded even among wizards like Alex Evans.
Yes let’s root for Alphabet controlling even more things!
It's not "Alphabet". Alphabet doesn't have a brain. It's people steering these companies. If our choice is between one megacorp with a proud and obvious narcissistic psychopath and one that has Demis, I'd rather go with the other.
The aggregate effect of the chemical gradients in the antheap controls the ants. It's similar in these giant companies where the combination of all the incentives makes for a gradient towards certain outcomes. I can see little intentionality or individual agency in what the likes of Google have produced in the last two decades.
Honestly, Hassabis and Amodei are the 2 last beacon of hopes for me in the AI race. What they have for them is that they both are scientists and not 'business-bros'. But are they genuine? Will they not be corrupted by power or pressure from shareholders?
The main problem is that in capitalism private companies have only the mission to serve their shareholders/owners.
Public institutions have the mission to serve the public.
The only real solution is to make AI a public good/utility which should be regulated on an international level and overseen by trustworthy institutions.
I agree with your feeling about Hassabis, but Dario gives me the creeps. YMMV of course. But I always have to think about him, grinning like a smurf at the WEF in Davos , telling everyone that their jobs will inevitably be eliminated by a machine of his creation. But that he is team human of course and deeply concerned (hahaha). In some weird sense, I even like Altman more.
You prefer Altman -- someone who will lie and cheat and backstab and work on autonomous military drones and video generators and adult chatbots, give his entire life and being, in order to amass as much power and influence as he can -- because you don't like Dario's smile?
I don't know any of them personally, so its all based on feelings anyway, created by internet consumption and the opinion of others. So who am I to judge anyway? However, I have a weird feeling about Dario and every time I see his interviews, I get the creeps and he begins to really annoy me. And yes. His smurfy smile is certainly a factor, yes.
I assume you're trolling, but in case otherwise:
The reason media training exists is to win over people like you.
I know people high up at OpenAI, I'm quite sure Altman etc. don't care either; the only difference is, they've been trained well to hide it.
same goes for Dario, doesn't it? A carefully crafted image
What irks me about Amodei is his insistence in his public communication and speeches for the role of AI in defense and in providing a strategic advantage over "the enemies of the US". Not sure how much it is political talk to appease this particular administration but it seems more prominent and reiterated than I'd like.
> The only real solution is to make AI a public good/utility which should be regulated on an international level and overseen by trustworthy institutions.
There is a precedent for this in nuclear weapons. It did not work. All it takes is a sufficiently resourced nation-state to defect from whatever agreements there are and the whole thing collapses. If the incentives point toward doing so, it is an inevitable outcome.
There was no nuclear weapon used in warfare anymore since WW II. I think the regulation and oversight worked incredibly well over the past 70-80 years, despite the game-theoretic challenge you mention.
I'm referring specifically to preventing additional countries from becoming nuclear powers. There was massive effort and coordination expended to this end. It failed repeatedly. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was signed in 1968. 5 more countries armed themselves thereafter.
[dead]
Bro has made enough money. He should just retire already.
as if that's the goal.
It's mine and yours.
You do realize that djmips is Demis' account?
No it isn't