3 ms·

We can demonstrate that we are more than a decade away from usable AGI. Processing power is not an issue even today, because consciousness does not have to be

We can demonstrate that we are more than a decade away from usable AGI. Processing power is not an issue even today, because consciousness does not have to be simulated in real time. If you needed 10,000x the compute you could have a large cluster of computers run for a year to simulate five minutes of consciousness. Since no one is able to do this, I suspect GAI is a long way off or, more likely, it's simply a myth.

mkaic 5y ago
Hmm, I don't think the fact that we have enough processing power (which I think we already do) precludes the possibility that we simply don't know how to use it. AGI isn't going to be a simulation of a human brain, it's going to be a model that learns to emulate human behavior on its own. Simulating the brain is not remotely feasible, at least not until we have hyperintelligent AGIs to help us design the chips to do it with :P
motoboi 5y ago
Think about how far from the atomic bomb we were at the dawn of the day Einsten sat down to think how fun it would be to ride a light ray. And how for we were at the end of that same day. There is not garantee that AGI research will follow some incremental line leading to decades of research. It can happen in an evening. That being said, my opinion is that the author believe AGI is near based on the fact that he wants to believe. UPDATE: What does Einsten theory of relativity has to do with atomic bombs, you may ask. Well, nothing actually, but you got the point.
zarzavat 5y ago
This doesn’t demonstrate anything in the time dimension. It’s simply saying we don’t know how to do it now, which everybody agrees on. I agree when you say we have the processing power already. GPT-3 contains way more information than a individual human brain can possibly experience (show me a human who has read Commmon Crawl like a book). The biggest issue currently is the data inefficiency of Transformers. But we don’t know when the big new thing that comes after Transformers will be invented, and we don’t know if it will be enough for AGI or not.

mkaic 5y ago

Hmm, I don't think the fact that we have enough processing power (which I think we already do) precludes the possibility that we simply don't know how to use it. AGI isn't going to be a simulation of a human brain, it's going to be a model that learns to emulate human behavior on its own. Simulating the brain is not remotely feasible, at least not until we have hyperintelligent AGIs to help us design the chips to do it with :P

motoboi 5y ago

Think about how far from the atomic bomb we were at the dawn of the day Einsten sat down to think how fun it would be to ride a light ray. And how for we were at the end of that same day. There is not garantee that AGI research will follow some incremental line leading to decades of research. It can happen in an evening. That being said, my opinion is that the author believe AGI is near based on the fact that he wants to believe. UPDATE: What does Einsten theory of relativity has to do with atomic bombs, you may ask. Well, nothing actually, but you got the point.

zarzavat 5y ago

This doesn’t demonstrate anything in the time dimension. It’s simply saying we don’t know how to do it now, which everybody agrees on. I agree when you say we have the processing power already. GPT-3 contains way more information than a individual human brain can possibly experience (show me a human who has read Commmon Crawl like a book). The biggest issue currently is the data inefficiency of Transformers. But we don’t know when the big new thing that comes after Transformers will be invented, and we don’t know if it will be enough for AGI or not.