3 ms·
Is anyone else irked by the questions about AGI? It's a bunch of fluff put forward by hacks. We're a long way off.
by zump 11y ago
Is anyone else irked by the questions about AGI? It's a bunch of fluff put forward by hacks. We're a long way off.
- AndrewKemendo 11y agoConsidering it's explicitly called out in their charter [1]: It's hard to fathom how much human-level AI could benefit society, and it's equally hard to imagine how much it could damage society if built or used incorrectly. and basically the entire reason the project exists in the first place is to try and get a technical handle on AGI risks. I would have to say it makes perfect sense. We're only a long way off if we continue to put tiny dollar figures into it. You should be thinking about it more like the Nucelar issue. Would you rather more or less thought be put into it? [1] https://openai.com/blog/introducing-openai/ https://openai.com/blog/introducing-openai/
- chriswarbo 11y agoI think there are legitimate research questions and concerns about AGI; unfortunately there's also a lot of fluff surrounding the area (e.g. singularity stuff, doomsday scenarios, etc.). The way I see it, there's only one conceptual barrier to cross between current AI and "AGI-like" technology, which could be summed up as 'models which take themselves into account'. Whilst it's trivial to have software modify itself, we don't have good models for predicting what those modifications will do (in a way which is more computationally efficient than just running them). An analogy is how encoding programs as ANNs lets us perform gradient descent, which we couldn't do if we encoded them as e.g. string of Java code. If we find a powerful software model which allows efficient prediction with white-box self-references, then I think lots of progress will be made quite quickly.