Ilya Sutskever (OpenAI Chief Scientist) - Building AGI, Alignment, Spies, Microsoft, & Enlightenment
Summary
TLDR在这次激动人心的采访中,OpenAI的联合创始人兼首席科学家Ilya Sutskever深入探讨了他在人工智能领域取得多项重大突破的背后动力和方法。他强调了持续的努力、对未来的愿景以及与可靠性和可控性挑战的斗争。Ilya对当前人工智能的经济价值、潜在的滥用风险、以及朝着人工通用智能(AGI)迈进的路上可能出现的发展窗口进行了深刻见解。此外,他还讨论了对未来的展望,包括人工智能在社会中的作用、与人类智能的比较,以及他对科技与人类未来共生的思考。
Takeaways
- 😀 伊利亚·苏茨克弗表示,他能在AI领域取得多个突破的原因是极其努力和全力以赴。
- 🤖 针对GPT潜在的不法使用,苏茨克弗认为这些风险现实存在,预计将来会有更多此类事件发生。
- 🔍 在大规模追踪非法使用GPT方面,苏茨克弗认为这是可能的,需要特别的操作来实现。
- 💡 苏茨克弗认为AI产业在达到通用人工智能(AGI)之前将经历多年的经济增值期。
- 🚀 对于AI的经济影响,苏茨克弗预计将有显著增长,但具体的GDP占比难以精确预测。
- 🤔 在讨论AI的可靠性问题时,苏茨克弗表示如果AI的可靠性不达标,将严重限制其经济价值。
- 🌐 在讨论AI发展的下一步时,苏茨克弗认为现有的生成模型方法将会带来巨大进步,但可能还不是达到AGI的最终形态。
- ✨ 苏茨克弗对AI进行强化学习的趋势表达了乐观态度,尤其是在自动化和与AI合作方面。
- 🔧 关于AI硬件的讨论中,苏茨克弗表示现有硬件已足够支持当前的AI研究和应用。
- 📊 苏茨克弗强调AI对世界的深远影响,认为人类可能需要与AI合作,以理解和解决未来的复杂问题。
Q & A
伊利亚·苏茨克沃表示,为什么他能在其领域取得多次重大突破?
-他表示,这是因为他非常努力,全力以赴,这一方法迄今为止有效。
为什么目前还没有更多非法使用GPT的情况出现?
-伊利亚认为,可能是因为还没有大规模地使用这项技术进行非法活动,但他也不排除这种情况正在发生。
人工智能在达到AGI之前的经济价值窗口有多大?
-伊利亚认为,这是一个好几年的时间窗口,因为人工智能在成为AGI之前的价值会以指数方式年复一年地增加。
为什么在2030年人工智能对GDP的贡献百分比难以预测?
-因为伊利亚认为他的误差范围是对数级的,可以想象一个巨大的百分比,也可以想象一个令人失望的小百分比。
如果2030年人工智能经济价值较小,伊利亚认为最可能的原因是什么?
-如果真的发生这种情况,伊利亚认为最可能的原因是可靠性问题,即人们需要不断检查人工智能的答案,这限制了其经济价值。
未来是否有可能完全不需要人类干预就能进行人工智能的增强学习?
-伊利亚认为,确实有可能实现这一点,未来的模型可能主要依赖于人工智能自我学习,而不是依赖于人类的直接干预。
为什么人工智能在进行多步骤推理时看似表现不佳?
-伊利亚解释说,人工智能在不允许“大声思考”时在多步骤推理方面似乎表现不佳,但允许它们这样做时,它们表现得相当好。
伊利亚如何看待人工智能对数据需求可能达到极限的情况?
-他认为,虽然目前数据情况还不错,但未来某一天数据会耗尽,届时需要寻找其他方式来训练模型,提高其能力。
伊利亚认为,在人工智能研究中哪种方向最有希望?
-他认为,将来可能需要将过去的所有不同想法整合在一起,而不是仅依赖当前的某个特定范式。
在谈到未来人工智能的发展时,伊利亚是否认为当前的硬件是一个限制因素?
-伊利亚认为,当前的硬件并不是限制因素,虽然他希望硬件成本更低,但总体上硬件对于人工智能的发展并不构成障碍。
Outlines
😊 伊利亚·苏茨克沃的科研成就
伊利亚·苏茨克沃谈到了他如何能够在自己的领域中取得多项重大突破。他强调了坚持不懈和全力以赴的重要性,并讨论了GPT的潜在非法使用及其防范措施。他还提到了AI技术在未达到通用人工智能(AGI)之前的经济价值窗口期,并探讨了自动驾车技术与AI模型发展的类比。
😃 AI技术的应用与风险
苏茨克沃讨论了AI在现实世界中可能遇到的挑战,尤其是在可靠性方面。他指出,虽然技术已经成熟,但其可靠性仍是一个未知数。此外,他探讨了生成模型之后的AI研究方向,并对超越人类性能的可能性提出了见解。苏茨克沃还谈到了通过增强学习让AI自我进步的前景,并展望了人机协作的未来。
😌 AI模型的多步推理与数据获取
在这一部分中,苏茨克沃讨论了AI模型在多步推理方面的表现及其提升空间。他强调了允许模型“大声思考”的重要性,并探讨了未来可能面临的数据短缺问题。他还评估了不同数据来源的价值,并对单模态与多模态学习的潜力进行了比较。
😎 AI对社会和经济的长远影响
苏茨克沃提出了关于AI对社会和经济长远影响的思考,包括AI在2030年对GDP的贡献。他探讨了AI技术未能创造预期经济价值的可能原因,并讨论了AI的可靠性和技术成熟度。此外,他对AI未来发展的路线图和潜在的研究方向进行了展望。
🤖 AI技术的未来发展和应用
在这一段中,苏茨克沃讨论了AI技术的未来发展方向,特别是在生成模型之后的研究领域。他对超越人类性能的AI的可能性表达了乐观态度,并探讨了通过增强学习实现AI自我进步的方法。苏茨克沃还预测了AI在教育和理解模型行为方面的潜力。
🧠 AI技术的对齐和安全问题
苏茨克沃在这一部分中探讨了AI技术的对齐和安全问题,特别是随着模型变得越来越强大,确保它们的行为与人类价值观一致的重要性。他讨论了不同的研究方向,并对AI对齐的最有前景的方法进行了评估。此外,他对AI模型理解和监管的未来进行了预测。
💡 AI技术发展的趋势和挑战
在最后一部分,苏茨克沃讨论了AI技术发展的趋势和挑战,包括硬件的影响、数据获取和处理的问题以及AI研究的未来方向。他还讨论了AI技术的民主化和如何保证AI系统的安全和有效性。最后,苏茨克沃分享了他对AI未来和人类社会将如何适应这些变化的见解。
Mindmap
Keywords
💡深度学习
💡AGI
💡GPT
💡可靠性
💡模型训练
💡经济价值
💡增强学习
💡对抗性训练
💡多模态学习
💡算法改进
Highlights
伊利亚·苏茨克弗解释了自己在多个领域取得突破的秘诀,强调了全力以赴的重要性。
苏茨克弗讨论了GPT未被非法用途广泛利用的原因,提出可能是缺乏足够的认识或尚未大规模实施。
他确认有可能追踪到GPT被非法使用的情况,但这需要特殊的操作。
苏茨克弗预测,在达到人工通用智能(AGI)之前,人工智能将会是一个长期的经济增值窗口。
他探讨了自动驾驶汽车的进展,将其作为理解AGI发展进程的一个类比。
苏茨克弗谈到了未来人工智能对GDP的潜在贡献,承认这是一个难以预测的问题。
他指出,如果人工智能的经济影响低于预期,可能是因为可靠性问题。
在谈到未来的AI模型时,苏茨克弗认为多模式学习是一个富有成果的方向。
他预测,即使在数据资源耗尽时,算法改进也能带来性能提升。
苏茨克弗提出了对强化学习在AI发展中角色的看法,特别是人类反馈在训练奖励函数中的作用。
他讨论了去人类化AI训练过程的可能性,以实现更高效的自我改进。
苏茨克弗解释了多步推理在AI中的挑战,强调了允许AI“大声思考”的重要性。
他探讨了人工智能在未来可能面临的数据饥饿问题,以及如何克服这一挑战。
苏茨克弗对人工智能与人类工作共存的未来表示乐观,强调人机协作的重要性。
他谈到了在达到AGI之后个人寻求意义和目标的挑战,以及AI如何帮助人类更好地理解世界。
苏茨克弗对于人工智能未来的发展方向持开放态度,认为灵感可能来自于人类或其他途径。
Transcripts
Today I have the pleasure of interviewing Ilya Sutskever,
who is the Co-founder and Chief Scientist of OpenAI. Ilya, welcome to The Lunar Society.
Thank you, happy to be here. First question and no humility
allowed. There are not that many scientists who will make a big breakthrough in their field,
there are far fewer scientists who will make multiple independent breakthroughs that define
their field throughout their career, what is the difference? What distinguishes you
from other researchers? Why have you been able to make multiple breakthroughs in your field?
Thank you for the kind words. It's hard to answer that question. I try really hard,
I give it everything I've got and that has worked so far. I think that's all there is to it.
Got it. What's the explanation for why there aren't more illicit uses of GPT?
Why aren't more foreign governments using it to spread propaganda or scam grandmothers?
Maybe they haven't really gotten to do it a lot. But it also wouldn't surprise me if some of it
was going on right now. I can certainly imagine they would be taking some of the open source
models and trying to use them for that purpose. For sure I would expect this to be something
they'd be interested in the future. It's technically possible they just
haven't thought about it enough? Or haven't done it at scale using
their technology. Or maybe it is happening, which is annoying.
Would you be able to track it if it was happening?
I think large-scale tracking is possible, yes. It requires special operations but it's possible.
Now there's some window in which AI is very economically valuable, let’s say on
the scale of airplanes, but we haven't reached AGI yet. How big is that window?
It's hard to give a precise answer and it’s definitely going to be a
good multi-year window. It's also a question of definition. Because AI, before it becomes AGI,
is going to be increasingly more valuable year after year in an exponential way.
In hindsight, it may feel like there was only one year or two years because those two years
were larger than the previous years. But I would say that already, last year, there has been a fair
amount of economic value produced by AI. Next year is going to be larger and larger after that. So
I think it's going to be a good multi-year chunk of time where that’s going to be true,
from now till AGI pretty much. Okay. Because I'm curious if there's
a startup that's using your model, at some point if you have AGI there's only one business in the
world, it's OpenAI. How much window does any business have where they're actually
producing something that AGI can’t produce? It's the same question as asking how long until
AGI. It's a hard question to answer. I hesitate to give you a number. Also because there is this
effect where optimistic people who are working on the technology tend to underestimate the time
it takes to get there. But the way I ground myself is by thinking about the self-driving
car. In particular, there is an analogy where if you look at the size of a Tesla,
and if you look at its self-driving behavior, it looks like it does everything. But it's also clear
that there is still a long way to go in terms of reliability. And we might be in a similar place
with respect to our models where it also looks like we can do everything, and at the same time,
we will need to do some more work until we really iron out all the issues and make it really good
and really reliable and robust and well behaved. By 2030, what percent of GDP is AI?
Oh gosh, very hard to answer that question. Give me an over-under.
The problem is that my error bars are in log scale. I could imagine a huge percentage,
I could imagine a really disappointing small percentage at the same time.
Okay, so let's take the counterfactual where it is a small percentage. Let's say it's 2030 and not
that much economic value has been created by these LLMs. As unlikely as you think this might be,
what would be your best explanation right now of why something like this might happen?
I really don't think that's a likely possibility, that's the preface to the comment. But
if I were to take the premise of your question, why were things disappointing in terms of
real-world impact? My answer would be reliability. If it somehow ends up being the case that
you really want them to be reliable and they ended up not being reliable, or if reliability
turned out to be harder than we expect. I really don't think that will be the case.
But if I had to pick one and you were telling me — hey, why didn't things work out? It would
be reliability. That you still have to look over the answers and double-check everything.
That just really puts a damper on the economic value that can be produced by those systems.
Got it. They will be technologically mature, it’s just the question of
whether they'll be reliable enough. Well, in some sense, not reliable means
not technologically mature. Yeah, fair enough.
What's after generative models? Before, you were working on reinforcement learning. Is this
basically it? Is this the paradigm that gets us to AGI? Or is there something after this?
I think this paradigm is gonna go really, really far and I would not underestimate it. It's quite
likely that this exact paradigm is not quite going to be the AGI form factor. I hesitate
to say precisely what the next paradigm will be but it will probably involve integration of
all the different ideas that came in the past. Is there some specific one you're referring to?
It's hard to be specific. So you could argue that
next-token prediction can only help us match human performance and maybe not surpass it?
What would it take to surpass human performance? I challenge the claim that next-token prediction
cannot surpass human performance. On the surface, it looks like it cannot. It looks like if you
just learn to imitate, to predict what people do, it means that you can only copy people.
But here is a counter argument for why it might not be quite so. If your base neural net is smart
enough, you just ask it — What would a person with great insight, wisdom, and capability do?
Maybe such a person doesn't exist, but there's a pretty good chance that the neural net will
be able to extrapolate how such a person would behave. Do you see what I mean?
Yes, although where would it get that sort of insight
about what that person would do? If not from… From the data of regular people. Because if you
think about it, what does it mean to predict the next token well enough? It's actually a
much deeper question than it seems. Predicting the next token well means that you understand
the underlying reality that led to the creation of that token.
It's not statistics. Like it is statistics but what is statistics?
In order to understand those statistics to compress them, you need to understand what
is it about the world that creates this set of statistics? And so then you say — Well, I have all
those people. What is it about people that creates their behaviors? Well they have thoughts and their
feelings, and they have ideas, and they do things in certain ways. All of those could be deduced
from next-token prediction. And I'd argue that this should make it possible, not indefinitely but
to a pretty decent degree to say — Well, can you guess what you'd do if you took a person with this
characteristic and that characteristic? Like such a person doesn't exist but because you're so good
at predicting the next token, you should still be able to guess what that person who would do.
This hypothetical, imaginary person with far greater mental ability than the rest of us.
When we're doing reinforcement learning on these models, how long before most of the
data for the reinforcement learning is coming from AI and not humans?
Already most of the default enforcement learning is coming from AIs.
The humans are being used to train the reward function. But then the reward function
and its interaction with the model is automatic and all the data that's generated during the
process of reinforcement learning is created by AI. If you look at the current technique/paradigm,
which is getting some significant attention because of chatGPT, Reinforcement Learning
from Human Feedback (RLHF). The human feedback has been used to train the reward function
and then the reward function is being used to create the data which trains the model.
Got it. And is there any hope of just removing a human from the loop and have
it improve itself in some sort of AlphaGo way? Yeah, definitely. The thing you really want is for
the human teachers that teach the AI to collaborate with an AI. You might want to
think of it as being in a world where the human teachers do 1% of the work and the AI does 99% of
the work. You don't want it to be 100% AI. But you do want it to be a human-machine collaboration,
which teaches the next machine. I've had a chance to play around
these models and they seem bad at multi-step reasoning. While they have been getting better,
what does it take to really surpass that barrier? I think dedicated training will get us there.
More and more improvements to the base models will get us there. But
fundamentally I also don't feel like they're that bad at multi-step reasoning. I actually think that
they are bad at mental multistep reasoning when they are not allowed to think out loud.
But when they are allowed to think out loud, they're quite good. And I expect
this to improve significantly, both with better models and with special training.
Are you running out of reasoning tokens on the internet? Are there enough of them?
So for context on this question, there are claims that at some point we will run out of tokens,
in general, to train those models. And yeah, I think this will happen one day and by the time
that happens, we need to have other ways of training models, other ways of productively
improving their capabilities and sharpening their behavior, making sure they're doing exactly,
precisely what you want, without more data. You haven't run out of data yet? There's more?
Yeah, I would say the data situation is still quite good. There's still lots to
go. But at some point the data will run out. What is the most valuable source of data? Is it
Reddit, Twitter, books? Where would you train many other tokens of other varieties for?
Generally speaking, you'd like tokens which are speaking about smarter things,
tokens which are more interesting.
All the sources which you mentioned are valuable. So maybe not Twitter. But do we need to go
multimodal to get more tokens? Or do we still have enough text tokens left?
I think that you can still go very far in text only but going multimodal
seems like a very fruitful direction. If you're comfortable talking about this,
where is the place where we haven't scraped the tokens yet?
Obviously I can't answer that question for us but I'm sure that for everyone
there is a different answer to that question. How many orders of magnitude improvement can
we get, not from scale or not from data, but just from algorithmic improvements?
Hard to answer but I'm sure there is some. Is some a lot or some a little?
There’s only one way to find out. Okay. Let me get your quickfire opinions
about these different research directions. Retrieval transformers. So it’s just somehow
storing the data outside of the model itself and retrieving it somehow.
Seems promising. But do you see that as a path forward?
It seems promising. Robotics. Was it the right
step for Open AI to leave that behind? Yeah, it was. Back then it really wasn't
possible to continue working in robotics because there was so little data.
Back then if you wanted to work on robotics, you needed to become a robotics company. You needed
to have a really giant group of people working on building robots and maintaining them. And
even then, if you’re gonna have 100 robots, it's a giant operation already,
but you're not going to get that much data. So in a world where most of the progress comes from the
combination of compute and data, there was no path to data on robotics. So back in the day,
when we made a decision to stop working in robotics, there was no path forward.
Is there one now? I'd say that now it is possible
to create a path forward. But one needs to really commit to the task of robotics. You really need
to say — I'm going to build many thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of robots,
and somehow collect data from them and find a gradual path where the robots are doing something
slightly more useful. And then the data that is obtained and used to train the models, and they do
something that's slightly more useful. You could imagine it's this gradual path of improvement,
where you build more robots, they do more things, you collect more data, and so on. But
you really need to be committed to this path. If you say, I want to make robotics happen,
that's what you need to do. I believe that there are companies who are doing exactly
that. But you need to really love robots and need to be really willing to solve all
the physical and logistical problems of dealing with them. It's not the same as software at all.
I think one could make progress in robotics today, with enough motivation.
What ideas are you excited to try but you can't because they don't work well on current hardware?
I don't think current hardware is a limitation. It's just not the case.
Got it. But anything you want to try you can just spin it up?
Of course. You might wish that current hardware was cheaper or maybe it
would be better if it had higher memory processing bandwidth let’s say.
But by and large hardware is just not an issue. Let's talk about alignment. Do you think we'll
ever have a mathematical definition of alignment? A mathematical definition is unlikely. Rather than
achieving one mathematical definition, I think we will achieve multiple definitions that look at
alignment from different aspects. And that this is how we will get the assurance that we want.
By which I mean you can look at the behavior in various tests, congruence, in various adversarial
stress situations, you can look at how the neural net operates from the inside. You have to look at
several of these factors at the same time. And how sure do you have to be before you
release a model in the wild? 100%? 95%? Depends on how capable the model is.
The more capable the model, the more confident we need to be.
Alright, so let's say it's something that's almost AGI. Where is AGI?
Depends on what your AGI can do. Keep in mind that AGI is an ambiguous term.
Your average college undergrad is an AGI, right? There's significant ambiguity in terms of what is
meant by AGI. Depending on where you put this mark you need to be more or less confident.
You mentioned a few of the paths toward alignment earlier, what is the one you
think is most promising at this point? I think that it will be a combination.
I really think that you will not want to have just one approach. People want to have
a combination of approaches. Where you spend a lot of compute adversarially to find any
mismatch between the behavior you want it to teach and the behavior that it exhibits.We
look into the neural net using another neural net to understand how it operates on the inside. All
of them will be necessary. Every approach like this reduces the probability of misalignment.
And you also want to be in a world where your degree of alignment keeps increasing
faster than the capability of the models. Do you think that the approaches we’ve taken
to understand the model today will be applicable to the actual super-powerful models? Or how
applicable will they be? Is it the same kind of thing that will work on them as well or?
x It's not guaranteed. I would say
that right now, our understanding of our models is still quite rudimentary. We’ve made some progress
but much more progress is possible. And so I would expect that ultimately, the thing that will really
succeed is when we will have a small neural net that is well understood that’s been given the
task to study the behavior of a large neural net that is not understood, to verify.
By what point is most of the AI research being done by AI?
Today when you use Copilot, how do you divide it up? So I expect at some point you ask your
descendant of ChatGPT, you say — Hey, I'm thinking about this and this. Can
you suggest fruitful ideas I should try? And you would actually get fruitful ideas. I don't
think that's gonna make it possible for you to solve problems you couldn't solve before.
Got it. But it's somehow just telling the humans giving them ideas faster or something. It's
not itself interacting with the research? That was one example. You could slice it in
a variety of ways. But the bottleneck there is good ideas, good insights and that's something
that the neural nets could help us with. If you're designing a billion-dollar prize
for some sort of alignment research result or product, what is the concrete criterion you
would set for that billion-dollar prize? Is there something that makes sense for such a prize?
It's funny that you asked, I was actually thinking about this exact question. I haven't
come up with the exact criterion yet. Maybe a prize where we could say that two years later,
or three years or five years later, we look back and say like that was the main result.
So rather than say that there is a prize committee that decides right away, you wait
for five years and then award it retroactively. But there's no concrete thing we can identify
as you solve this particular problem and you’ve made a lot of progress?
A lot of progress, yes. I wouldn't say that this would be the full thing.
Do you think end-to-end training is the right architecture for bigger
and bigger models? Or do we need better ways of just connecting things together?
End-to-end training is very promising. Connecting things together is very promising.
Everything is promising. So Open AI is projecting revenues
of a billion dollars in 2024. That might very well be correct but I'm just curious, when you're
talking about a new general-purpose technology, how do you estimate how big a windfall it'll be?
Why that particular number? We've had a product
for quite a while now, back from the GPT-3 days, from two years ago through the API and we've seen
how it grew. We've seen how the response to DALL-E has grown as well and you see how the
response to ChatGPT is, and all of this gives us information that allows us to make relatively
sensible extrapolations of anything. Maybe that would be one answer. You need to have data,
you can’t come up with those things out of thin air because otherwise, your error bars
are going to be like 100x in each direction. But most exponentials don't stay exponential
especially when they get into bigger and bigger quantities, right? So how
do you determine in this case? Would you bet against AI?
Not after talking with you. Let's talk about what a post-AGI future looks like. I'm guessing
you're working 80-hour weeks towards this grand goal that you're really obsessed with. Are you
going to be satisfied in a world where you're basically living in an AI retirement home?
What are you personally doing after AGI comes? The question of what I'll be doing or what people
will be doing after AGI comes is a very tricky question. Where will people find meaning? But
I think that that's something that AI could help us with. One thing I imagine is that
we will be able to become more enlightened because we interact with an AGI which will help us
see the world more correctly, and become better on the inside as a result of interacting. Imagine
talking to the best meditation teacher in history, that will be a helpful thing. But
I also think that because the world will change a lot, it will be very hard for people to understand
what is happening precisely and how to really contribute. One thing that I think
some people will choose to do is to become part AI. In order to really expand their minds and
understanding and to really be able to solve the hardest problems that society will face then.
Are you going to become part AI? It is very tempting.
Do you think there'll be physically embodied humans in the year 3000?
3000? How do I know what’s gonna happen in 3000? Like what does it look like? Are there still
humans walking around on Earth? Or have you guys thought concretely about what
you actually want this world to look like? Let me describe to you what I think is not quite
right about the question. It implies we get to decide how we want the world to look like.
I don't think that picture is correct. Change is the only constant. And so of course, even
after AGI is built, it doesn't mean that the world will be static. The world will continue to change,
the world will continue to evolve. And it will go through all kinds of transformations. I
don't think anyone has any idea of how the world will look like in 3000. But
I do hope that there will be a lot of descendants of human beings who will live happy, fulfilled
lives where they're free to do as they see fit. Or they are the ones who are solving their own
problems. One world which I would find very unexciting is one where we build this powerful
tool, and then the government said — Okay, so the AGI said that society should be run in such
a way and now we should run society in such a way. I'd much rather have a world where people
are still free to make their own mistakes and suffer their consequences and gradually evolve
morally and progress forward on their own, with the AGI providing more like a base safety net.
How much time do you spend thinking about these kinds of things versus just doing the research?
I do think about those things a fair bit. They are very interesting questions.
The capabilities we have today, in what ways have they surpassed where we expected them to
be in 2015? And in what ways are they still not where you'd expected them to be by this point?
In fairness, it's sort of what I expected in 2015. In 2015, my thinking was a lot more — I just don't
want to bet against deep learning. I want to make the biggest possible bet on deep learning. I don't
know how, but it will figure it out. But is there any specific way in which
it's been more than you expected or less than you expected? Like some concrete prediction
out of 2015 that's been bounced? Unfortunately, I don't remember
concrete predictions I made in 2015. But I definitely think that overall,
in 2015, I just wanted to move to make the biggest bet possible on deep learning, but
I didn't know exactly. I didn't have a specific idea of how far things will go in seven years.
Well, no in 2015, I did have all these best with people in 2016, maybe 2017, that things will go
really far. But specifics. So it's like, it's both, it's both the case that it surprised me
and I was making these aggressive predictions. But maybe I believed them only 50% on the inside.
What do you believe now that even most people at OpenAI would find far fetched?
Because we communicate a lot at OpenAI people have a pretty good sense of what I think and
we've really reached the point at OpenAI where we see eye to eye on all these questions.
Google has its custom TPU hardware, it has all this data from all its users, Gmail,
and so on. Does it give them an advantage in terms of training
bigger models and better models than you?
At first, when the TPU came out I was really impressed and I thought — wow,
this is amazing. But that's because I didn't quite understand hardware back then.
What really turned out to be the case is that TPUs and GPUs are almost the same thing.
They are very, very similar. The GPU chip is a little bit bigger,
the TPU chip is a little bit smaller, maybe a little bit cheaper. But then they make more GPUs
and TPUs so the GPUs might be cheaper after all. But fundamentally, you have a big processor,
and you have a lot of memory and there is a bottleneck between those two. And the problem
that both the TPU and the GPU are trying to solve is that the amount of time it takes you
to move one floating point from the memory to the processor, you can do several hundred floating
point operations on the processor, which means that you have to do some kind of batch processing.
And in this sense, both of these architectures are the same. So I really feel like in some sense,
the only thing that matters about hardware is cost per flop and overall systems cost.
There isn't that much difference? Actually, I don't know. I don't know
what the TPU costs are but I would suspect that if anything, TPUs are probably more
expensive because there are less of them. When you are doing your work, how much of the time
is spent configuring the right initializations? Making sure the training run goes well and getting
the right hyperparameters, and how much is it just coming up with whole new ideas?
I would say it's a combination. Coming up with whole new ideas is a modest part
of the work. Certainly coming up with new ideas is important but even more important
is to understand the results, to understand the existing ideas, to understand what's going on.
A neural net is a very complicated system, right? And you ran it, and you get some behavior,
which is hard to understand. What's going on? Understanding the results, figuring out
what next experiment to run, a lot of the time is spent on that. Understanding what could be wrong,
what could have caused the neural net to produce a result which was not expected.
I'd say a lot of time is spent coming up with new ideas as well. I don't like this
framing as much. It's not that it's false but the main activity is actually understanding.
What do you see as the difference between the two?
At least in my mind, when you say come up with new ideas, I'm like — Oh, what happens
if it did such and such? Whereas understanding it's more like — What is this whole thing? What
are the real underlying phenomena that are going on? What are the underlying effects?
Why are we doing things this way and not another way? And of course,
this is very adjacent to what can be described as coming up with ideas. But the understanding
part is where the real action takes place. Does that describe your entire career? If you
think back on something like ImageNet, was that more new idea or was that more understanding?
Well, that was definitely understanding. It was a new understanding of very old things.
What has the experience of training on Azure been like?
Fantastic. Microsoft has been a very, very good partner for us. They've really
helped take Azure and bring it to a point where it's really good for ML
and we’re super happy with it. How vulnerable is the whole AI
ecosystem to something that might happen in Taiwan? So let's say there's a tsunami in Taiwan
or something, what happens to AI in general? It's definitely going to be a significant setback.
No one will be able to get more compute for a few years. But I expect compute will spring up. For
example, I believe that Intel has fabs just like a few generations ago. So that means that if Intel
wanted to they could produce something GPU-like from four years ago. But yeah, it's not the best,
I'm actually not sure if my statement about Intel is correct, but I do know that there are fabs
outside of Taiwan, they're just not as good. But you can still use them and still go very far with
them. It's just cost, it’s just a setback. Would inference get cost prohibitive as
these models get bigger and bigger? I have a different way of looking at
this question. It's not that inference will become cost prohibitive. Inference of better
models will indeed become more expensive. But is it prohibitive? That depends on how useful it
is. If it is more useful than it is expensive then it is not prohibitive.
To give you an analogy, suppose you want to talk to a lawyer. You have some case
or need some advice or something, you're perfectly happy to spend $400 an hour.
Right? So if your neural net could give you really reliable legal advice,
you'd say — I'm happy to spend $400 for that advice. And suddenly inference becomes very much
non-prohibitive. The question is, can a neural net produce an answer good enough at this cost?
Yes. And you will just have price discrimination in different models?
It's already the case today. On our product, the API serves multiple neural nets of different sizes
and different customers use different neural nets of different sizes depending on their use case.
If someone can take a small model and fine-tune it and get something that's satisfactory for them,
they'll use that. But if someone wants to do something more complicated and more interesting,
they’ll use the biggest model. How do you prevent these models from
just becoming commodities where these different companies just bid each other's prices down
until it's basically the cost of the GPU run? Yeah, there's without question a force that's
trying to create that. And the answer is you got to keep on making progress. You got to keep
improving the models, you gotta keep on coming up with new ideas and making our models better
and more reliable, more trustworthy, so you can trust their answers. All those things.
Yeah. But let's say it's 2025 and somebody is offering the model from 2024 at cost.
And it's still pretty good. Why would people use a new one from 2025 if the
one from just a year older is even better? There are several answers there. For some
use cases that may be true. There will be a new model for 2025, which will be driving the more
interesting use cases. There is also going to be a question of inference cost. If you can do
research to serve the same model at less cost. The same model will cost different amounts to serve
for different companies. I can also imagine some degree of specialization where some companies may
try to specialize in some area and be stronger compared to other companies. And to me that may
be a response to commoditization to some degree. Over time do the research directions of these
different companies converge or diverge? Are they doing similar and similar things over time? Or are
they branching off into different areas? I’d say in the near term, it looks
like there is convergence. I expect there's going to be a convergence-divergence-convergence
behavior, where there is a lot of convergence on the near term work, there's going to be some
divergence on the longer term work. But then once the longer term work starts to fruit,
there will be convergence again, Got it. When one of them finds the
most promising area, everybody just… That's right. There is obviously less
publishing now so it will take longer before this promising direction gets rediscovered. But
that's how I would imagine the thing is going to be. Convergence, divergence, convergence.
Yeah. We talked about this a little bit at the beginning. But as foreign governments
learn about how capable these models are, are you worried about spies or some sort of
attack to get your weights or somehow abuse these models and learn about them?
Yeah, you absolutely can't discount that. Something that we try to guard against to the
best of our ability, but it's going to be a problem for everyone who's building this.
How do you prevent your weights from leaking? You have really good security people.
How many people have the ability to SSH into the machine with the weights?
The security people have done a really good job so I'm really not
worried about the weights being leaked. What kinds of emergent properties are you
expecting from these models at this scale? Is there something that just comes about de novo?
I'm sure really new surprising properties will come up, I would not be surprised. The thing which
I'm really excited about, the things which I’d like to see is — reliability and controllability.
I think that this will be a very, very important class of emergent properties. If you have
reliability and controllability that helps you solve a lot of problems. Reliability means you can
trust the model's output, controllability means you can control it. And we'll see but it will be
very cool if those emergent properties did exist. Is there some way you can predict that in advance?
What will happen in this parameter count, what will happen in that parameter count?
I think it's possible to make some predictions about specific capabilities though it's definitely
not simple and you can’t do it in a super fine-grained way, at least today. But getting
better at that is really important. And anyone who is interested and who has research ideas on how to
do that, that can be a valuable contribution. How seriously do you take these scaling laws?
There's a paper that says — You need this many orders of magnitude more to get all
the reasoning out? Do you take that seriously or do you think it breaks down at some point?
The thing is that the scaling law tells you what happens to your log of your next word prediction
accuracy, right? There is a whole separate challenge of linking next-word prediction accuracy
to reasoning capability. I do believe that there is a link but this link is complicated.
And we may find that there are other things that can give us more reasoning per unit effort.
You mentioned reasoning tokens, I think they can be helpful.
There can probably be some things that help. Are you considering just hiring humans to
generate tokens for you? Or is it all going to come from stuff that already exists out there?
I think that relying on people to teach our models to do things, especially to make sure that they
are well-behaved and they don't produce false things is an extremely sensible thing to do.
Isn't it odd that we have the data we needed exactly at the same time as we
have the transformer at the exact same time that we have these GPUs? Like is it
odd to you that all these things happened at the same time or do you not see it that way?
It is definitely an interesting situation that is the case. I will say that
it is odd and it is less odd on some level. Here's why it's less odd — what is the driving
force behind the fact that the data exists, that the GPUs exist, and that the transformers exist?
The data exists because computers became better and cheaper, we've got smaller and
smaller transistors. And suddenly, at some point, it became economical for
every person to have a personal computer. Once everyone has a personal computer,
you really want to connect them to the network, you get the internet. Once you have the internet,
you suddenly have data appearing in great quantities. The GPUs were improving concurrently
because you have smaller and smaller transistors and you're looking for things to do with them.
Gaming turned out to be a thing that you could do. And then at some point, Nvidia said — the
gaming GPU, I might turn it into a general purpose GPU computer, maybe someone will find
it useful. It turns out it's good for neural nets. It could have been the case that maybe
the GPU would have arrived five years later, ten years later. Let's suppose gaming wasn't
the thing. It's kind of hard to imagine, what does it mean if gaming isn't a thing?
But maybe there was a counterfactual world where GPUs arrived five years after the data
or five years before the data, in which case maybe things wouldn’t have been as
ready to go as they are now. But that's the picture which I imagine. All this progress in
all these dimensions is very intertwined. It's not a coincidence. You don't get to pick and
choose in which dimensions things improve. How inevitable is this kind of progress?
Let's say you and Geoffrey Hinton and a few other pioneers were never born. Does
the deep learning revolution happen around the same time? How much is it delayed?
Maybe there would have been some delay. Maybe like a year delayed?
Really? That’s it? It's really hard to
tell. I hesitate to give a longer answer because — GPUs will keep on improving.
I cannot see how someone would not have discovered it. Because here's the other thing. Let's suppose
no one has done it, computers keep getting faster and better. It becomes easier and easier to train
these neural nets because you have bigger GPUs, so it takes less engineering effort to train
one. You don't need to optimize your code as much. When the ImageNet data set came out,
it was huge and it was very, very difficult to use. Now imagine you wait for a few years,
and it becomes very easy to download and people can just tinker. A modest
number of years maximum would be my guess. I hesitate to give a lot longer answer though.
You can’t re-run the world you don’t know. Let's go back to alignment for a second. As
somebody who deeply understands these models, what is your intuition of how hard alignment will be?
At the current level of capabilities, we have a pretty good set of ideas for how to align them.
But I would not underestimate the difficulty of alignment of models that are actually
smarter than us, of models that are capable of misrepresenting their intentions. It's something
to think about a lot and do research. Oftentimes academic researchers ask me what’s the best place
where they can contribute. And alignment research is one place where academic researchers can make
very meaningful contributions. Other than that, do you think academia
will come up with important insights about actual capabilities or is that
going to be just the companies at this point? The companies will realize the capabilities.
It's very possible for academic research to come up with those insights. It doesn't seem
to happen that much for some reason but I don't think there's anything
fundamental about academia. It's not like academia can't. Maybe they're just not
thinking about the right problems or something because maybe it's just easier to see what needs
to be done inside these companies. I see. But there's a possibility that
somebody could just realize… I totally think so. Why
would I possibly rule this out? What are the concrete steps by which
these language models start actually impacting the world of atoms and not just the world of bits?
I don't think that there is a clean distinction between the world of bits and the world of atoms.
Suppose the neural net tells you — hey here's something that you should do, and it's going
to improve your life. But you need to rearrange your apartment in a certain way. And then you
go and rearrange your apartment as a result. The neural net impacted the world of atoms.
Fair enough. Do you think it'll take a couple of additional breakthroughs as important as
the Transformer to get to superhuman AI? Or do you think we basically got the insights in
the books somewhere, and we just need to implement them and connect them?
I don't really see such a big distinction between those two cases and let me explain why. One of
the ways in which progress is taking place in the past is that we've understood that something had a
desirable property all along but we didn't realize. Is that a breakthrough? You can say yes,
it is. Is that an implementation of something in the books? Also, yes.
My feeling is that a few of those are quite likely to happen. But in hindsight,
it will not feel like a breakthrough. Everybody's gonna say — Oh, well, of course. It's totally
obvious that such and such a thing can work. The reason the Transformer has been brought
up as a specific advance is because it's the kind of thing that was not obvious for almost
anyone. So people can say it's not something which they knew about. Let's consider the most
fundamental advance of deep learning, that a big neural network trained in backpropagation can do
a lot of things. Where's the novelty? Not in the neural network. It's not in the backpropagation.
But it was most definitely a giant conceptual breakthrough because for the longest time,
people just didn't see that. But then now that everyone sees, everyone’s gonna say — Well,
of course, it's totally obvious. Big neural network. Everyone knows that they can do it.
What is your opinion of your former advisor’s new forward forward algorithm?
I think that it's an attempt to train a neural network without backpropagation.
And that this is especially interesting if you are motivated to try to understand how
the brain might be learning its connections. The reason for that is that, as far as I know,
neuroscientists are really convinced that the brain cannot implement
backpropagation because the signals in the synapses only move in one direction.
And so if you have a neuroscience motivation, and you want to say — okay,
how can I come up with something that tries to approximate the good properties of backpropagation
without doing backpropagation? That's what the forward forward algorithm is trying to do. But
if you are trying to just engineer a good system there is no reason to not use backpropagation.
It's the only algorithm. I guess I've heard you
in different contexts talk about using humans as the existing example case that
AGI exists. At what point do you take the metaphor less seriously and don't feel the need to pursue
it in terms of the research? Because it is important to you as a sort of existence case.
At what point do I stop caring about humans as an existence case of intelligence?
Or as an example you want to follow in terms of pursuing intelligence in models.
I think it's good to be inspired by humans, it's good to be inspired by the brain. There
is an art into being inspired by humans in the brain correctly, because it's very easy to latch
on to a non-essential quality of humans or of the brain. And many people whose research is trying
to be inspired by humans and by the brain often get a little bit specific. People get a little
bit too — Okay, what cognitive science model should be followed? At the same time, consider
the idea of the neural network itself, the idea of the artificial neuron. This too is inspired
by the brain but it turned out to be extremely fruitful. So how do they do this? What behaviors
of human beings are essential that you say this is something that proves to us that it's possible?
What is an essential? No this is actually some emergent phenomenon of something more basic, and
we just need to focus on getting our own basics right.
One can and should be inspired by human intelligence with care.
Final question. Why is there, in your case, such a strong correlation between being first
to the deep learning revolution and still being one of the top researchers? You would
think that these two things wouldn't be that correlated. But why is there that correlation?
I don't think those things are super correlated. Honestly, it's hard to answer the question. I just
kept trying really hard and it turned out to have sufficed thus far.
So it's perseverance. It's a necessary but not
a sufficient condition. Many things need to come together in order to
really figure something out. You need to really go for it and also need to have the right way
of looking at things. It's hard to give a really meaningful answer to this question.
Ilya, it has been a true pleasure. Thank you so much for coming to The Lunar Society. I appreciate
you bringing us to the offices. Thank you. Yeah, I really enjoyed it. Thank you very much.
Browse More Related Video
Interview with Dr. Ilya Sutskever, co-founder of OPEN AI - at the Open University studios - English
Super Humanity | Transhumanism
6. Layers of Mental Activities
Possible End of Humanity from AI? Geoffrey Hinton at MIT Technology Review's EmTech Digital
Ilya Sutskever: Deep Learning | Lex Fridman Podcast #94
Demis Hassabis - Scaling, Superhuman AIs, AlphaZero atop LLMs, Rogue Nations Threat
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)