> The cloud deployment surface covered in our contract would not permit powering fully autonomous weapons, as this would require edge deployment.
… What?? Much of this seems duplicitous, but this isn’t even coherent. Is their implication that it’s not “autonomous” if it involves an api call to an external system? That mere definition would be extremely alarming.
Natural radioactive decay is also an example of fission - just not a fission chain reaction (… except when it is! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklo )
I think it’s very much a magical fantasy computer :-) A thought experiment, rather than a claim to something that’s been built or exists.
The questions you pose are interesting ones, for the sake of the experiment I think at least:
- Programming
- Loading new software
- Adding new functionality
- Persisting user data
Could all at least in principle be achieved without changing the network architecture, but rather just providing the relevant data at the inputs (eg the full bit stream of the install file of the new software being installed) and having that lead to adjustments in activations (not weights or architecture) across the network which lead to any future inputs to the network resulting in the outputs that would be expected in the presence of the new software. Same deal for the other examples.
As to whether this is practical or achievable at present - not even remotely close in my view. But it’s still an interesting idea, even if just to think about why it wouldnt work and what that implies for future development direction of multimodal networks etc.
Perhaps. I was thinking along the lines of MarkBurns response - ML will allow us to efficiently look in those places we might otherwise only have searched by accident.
If ops point was rather that “accident”/“luck” are uniquely human… I don’t agree. Luck is when probability works out in your favour - and that can happen all the time with any sort of probabilistic search, which is rife in ML.
I think ML is likely to be material to us making many more such discoveries. So much of the current constraint is not in the knowledge to identify the interesting pattern, but the capacity to look for it at scale.
In New Zealand we have a pretty effective system that covers all fossil fuel use nationally, as well as several other greenhouse gas emission classes (notably not agricultural emissions though hopefully they’re included soon). The EU has something similar as do several other jurisdictions. It’s a solved problem at scale.
In NZ we also have an effective system for recognising and incentivising certain classes of forest carbon removals (which I think are a legitimate and important class of credits - unlike avoided emission credits which I agree are junk).
… What?? Much of this seems duplicitous, but this isn’t even coherent. Is their implication that it’s not “autonomous” if it involves an api call to an external system? That mere definition would be extremely alarming.