4 ms·

After using all these AI systems I still don't believe we will have AGI anytime soon. At least by the definition stated here in the article. Uber put a huge pa

After using all these AI systems I still don't believe we will have AGI anytime soon. At least by the definition stated here in the article. Uber put a huge part of it's future value into self-driving cars replacing those expensive drivers. Didn't work out for them. Tesla's system won't pass Level 2 with vision only. Google's setup works good enough until it doesn't. I see ChatGPT and others as the next step up from factory robots. Those robots replaced certain workers and repetitive tasks. Now ChatGPT can do that for copy and certain things like that. However there are still a lot of physical jobs that a robot can not do even though we have tried very hard even on a factory floor. Elon had to learn that lesson the hard way. The same will apply to these systems. It will program something for you to a certain point, then you need humans.

gs17 3y ago
>It will program something for you to a certain point, then you need humans. I'm more concerned about reaching near-AGI where the "you need humans" parts are more and more limited (while the number of humans is less and less limited) but our economies refuse to adapt.
- jrajav 3y ago
  This is an issue with the productivity gains from automation being siphoned off in general, and we've been boiling that frog for a century plus. We're gonna have to figure out a more sophisticated economic model before too long but it will probably have to be a painful lesson.
- snowwrestler 3y ago
  The number of humans is actually becoming more limited; global population growth is slowing and will cease not too long from now. So building productive systems that need fewer humans will be good for the economy in the long run. Personally I hope we never make it to AGI as I think it would raise moral and social concerns about issues like compulsion and slavery. Best to stay under that line, where tools are extremely productive but not arguably conscious beings.

gs17 3y ago

>It will program something for you to a certain point, then you need humans. I'm more concerned about reaching near-AGI where the "you need humans" parts are more and more limited (while the number of humans is less and less limited) but our economies refuse to adapt.

jrajav 3y ago
This is an issue with the productivity gains from automation being siphoned off in general, and we've been boiling that frog for a century plus. We're gonna have to figure out a more sophisticated economic model before too long but it will probably have to be a painful lesson.
snowwrestler 3y ago
The number of humans is actually becoming more limited; global population growth is slowing and will cease not too long from now. So building productive systems that need fewer humans will be good for the economy in the long run. Personally I hope we never make it to AGI as I think it would raise moral and social concerns about issues like compulsion and slavery. Best to stay under that line, where tools are extremely productive but not arguably conscious beings.