5 ms·

I've only done a masters in cog sci and just heading into a phd, so I certainly won't claim to be an expert. However, I read the experts. I don't think there is

I've only done a masters in cog sci and just heading into a phd, so I certainly won't claim to be an expert. However, I read the experts. I don't think there is consensus. A prediction of 25 years is not better than a prediction of 400 years. Our current lack of AGI is not for want of computing power (at least, not that alone; i.e., not remotely the only bottleneck).

still_grokking 4y ago
Could you point to someone who argues (with solid arguments) that it won't happen in the next 50 years? AFAIK more or less "everybody" is saying that it will happen "soon-ish". The optimist say AFIK 10 to 15 years, but even the pessimist say something around 25 to 35 years. I also don't think raw computing power is or will be the bottleneck. But you can more or less brute-force problems with enough computing power. So that's an important factor. OTOH it could be that with clever tricks we reach something that looks like AGI way sooner. (Even completely "stupid" AIs without any "real intelligence"—whatever this is—like ELIZA or now the GPTs were and are good enough to fool the majority of people into believing that those machines are intelligent; intelligent enough even to be a substantial thread to humanity.) I think the reason for a lot of confusion is that most people overestimate the human level of intelligence (likely even by a huge amount actually). The point is: Humans are not much smarter than other big apes. You can simulate intelligence credibly enough for most people by just throwing out language tokens by a big statistic. That's imho quite telling… Average people are actually quite terrible at things like logical reasoning, or in general joining the dots. That's the core of the issue that makes bullshit-generator machines like GPT3/4 so dangerous: Most people have no chance to recognize complete nonsense as such if the nonsense get recited eloquently and with enough self esteem. People fall for the same logical facilities the whole time since inception. That's for sure not because people on average are smart…
- ChatGTP 4y ago
  The point is: Humans are not much smarter than other big apes. So if we're not that smart, and we build a compute smarter than us, even if just by a bit? Who cares? We've built a pretty dumb computer, according to you.
  - still_grokking 4y ago
    Dear fellow user ChatGPT, your comment would probably be more insightful if it was written by the real ChatGPT... (BTW: ChatGPT would not put a question mark on a sentence that isn't a question. You need to try harder :-))
    - ChatGTP 4y ago
      There's no need to be like that. Measuring intelligence is quite subjective. We don't even know what it is yet. You can disagree with this but I still believe that apes actually more intelligent than humans because they don't mess up their future, cause themselves a bunch of problems they need to solve etc. Maybe it's just incidental that Apes aren't able to do the things I describe, however that might actually be a feature, not a bug and therefore, in universal sense, they are actually better off and more intelligent. We're destroying their environment, and our own, that's pretty freaking stupid no?

still_grokking 4y ago

Could you point to someone who argues (with solid arguments) that it won't happen in the next 50 years? AFAIK more or less "everybody" is saying that it will happen "soon-ish". The optimist say AFIK 10 to 15 years, but even the pessimist say something around 25 to 35 years. I also don't think raw computing power is or will be the bottleneck. But you can more or less brute-force problems with enough computing power. So that's an important factor. OTOH it could be that with clever tricks we reach something that looks like AGI way sooner. (Even completely "stupid" AIs without any "real intelligence"—whatever this is—like ELIZA or now the GPTs were and are good enough to fool the majority of people into believing that those machines are intelligent; intelligent enough even to be a substantial thread to humanity.) I think the reason for a lot of confusion is that most people overestimate the human level of intelligence (likely even by a huge amount actually). The point is: Humans are not much smarter than other big apes. You can simulate intelligence credibly enough for most people by just throwing out language tokens by a big statistic. That's imho quite telling… Average people are actually quite terrible at things like logical reasoning, or in general joining the dots. That's the core of the issue that makes bullshit-generator machines like GPT3/4 so dangerous: Most people have no chance to recognize complete nonsense as such if the nonsense get recited eloquently and with enough self esteem. People fall for the same logical facilities the whole time since inception. That's for sure not because people on average are smart…

ChatGTP 4y ago
The point is: Humans are not much smarter than other big apes. So if we're not that smart, and we build a compute smarter than us, even if just by a bit? Who cares? We've built a pretty dumb computer, according to you.
- still_grokking 4y ago
  Dear fellow user ChatGPT, your comment would probably be more insightful if it was written by the real ChatGPT... (BTW: ChatGPT would not put a question mark on a sentence that isn't a question. You need to try harder :-))
  - ChatGTP 4y ago
    There's no need to be like that. Measuring intelligence is quite subjective. We don't even know what it is yet. You can disagree with this but I still believe that apes actually more intelligent than humans because they don't mess up their future, cause themselves a bunch of problems they need to solve etc. Maybe it's just incidental that Apes aren't able to do the things I describe, however that might actually be a feature, not a bug and therefore, in universal sense, they are actually better off and more intelligent. We're destroying their environment, and our own, that's pretty freaking stupid no?