4 ms·
I think most people are just seeing the speed of (seemingly) progress as a direction to AGI. But we are far from it. Though maybe we are seeing something inte
by freddealmeida 3y ago
I think most people are just seeing the speed of (seemingly) progress as a direction to AGI. But we are far from it. Though maybe we are seeing something interesting in linear world models recently emerging. But my guess is gradual progress and then all of a sudden we will have AGI. But that first part will take 20-30 years. at least.
- arisAlexis 3y agoBut 2 out of 3 scientists that created the tech you are talking about disagree with you. Makes you wonder if..?
- xkapastel 3y agoThis is a strange way to count, the three Turing award winners are not the ones that "created the tech". Many thousands of people did that.
- arisAlexis 3y agoIt's common to call them godfathers of AI. Surely Oppenheimer didn't create the bomb alone but you get the point.
- xkapastel 3y agoThe point is wrong, they don't have any claim to having created deep learning and so their perspective can't be used to argue for the reality of "superintelligence". Even if they did create it, the question of whether "superintelligence" is a meaningful concept or not isn't really related to what they would have had to go through in order to make deep learning work.
- arisAlexis 3y agoSo in computer science nobody can claim that they are the godfather of X. In physics too because everyone was based on mathcfrom ancient Greece. I get your point. Let's focus on the important stuff. 2 out of 3 Turing award winners related to this tech put up huge warnings. You think a) ignore or b) take seriously?
- nullsense 3y agoI don't know that it's meaningful to throw out numbers like 20 or 30 years anymore. I've seen enough experts make predictions in this field and be wrong that the only prediction I'm comfortable making about their predictions is that they're probably wrong.