3 ms·

1) Humans are extremely poor predictors of the future and even worse when it comes to disruptive patterns. 2) They often try to drive scenarios that are merely

1) Humans are extremely poor predictors of the future and even worse when it comes to disruptive patterns. 2) They often try to drive scenarios that are merely an extension of existing systems. 3) Very few people are in a position to review AI progress accurately as most advanced systems aren’t public. 4) Those that are in that position speak of a great deal of ways that AI systems are failing, while simultaneously positioning their companies for the advent AGI. Is it a land grab in preparation as the market would clearly demand? Yes. You can see this in the intense lobby work happening with government around the world. But there is obviously a feeling of inevitability, or at least a desire to create the impression of the feeling of inevitability, for an AGI. I would imagine this technology wave will be similar to previous waves, but faster, as they have been getting faster, making mature try for AI a 2040-2045 proposition. That leaves only another few years until we enter early mainstream adoption — at most. I assume there is a lot of discussion about Smihula / Kondratiev waves and turning points happening and really the turning point is what everyone is positioning for. Got to be in at that point and have the strategy set if you want to win this wave, and then get ready for the emergent second generation (salesforce, Google, etc.) competitors to come at you. Anyone else see that as generally correct? What am I missing?

ShamelessC 3y ago
> 3) Very few people are in a position to review AI progress accurately as most advanced systems aren’t public. The most advanced system (GPT4) is public. Same goes for image generation and most others. I certainly can’t think of a counter example.
- kromem 3y ago
  No, it isn't. The most advanced system is the raw GPT-4 foundational model, which is not public. What is public is the RLHF instruct/chat/safety fine tuned version of the foundational model. As could be seen with DaVinci vs 3.5-chat, foundational models - while more difficult to work with - give much more variety and quality to responses than the chat tuned versions. The average person with access to the public GPT-4 models actually has no idea of what the current SotA can actually do or can't do. They only know the capabilities of the version OpenAI deemed acceptable to give them access to.
- jabradoodle 3y ago
  How would you know, if it's not public?

ShamelessC 3y ago

> 3) Very few people are in a position to review AI progress accurately as most advanced systems aren’t public. The most advanced system (GPT4) is public. Same goes for image generation and most others. I certainly can’t think of a counter example.

kromem 3y ago
No, it isn't. The most advanced system is the raw GPT-4 foundational model, which is not public. What is public is the RLHF instruct/chat/safety fine tuned version of the foundational model. As could be seen with DaVinci vs 3.5-chat, foundational models - while more difficult to work with - give much more variety and quality to responses than the chat tuned versions. The average person with access to the public GPT-4 models actually has no idea of what the current SotA can actually do or can't do. They only know the capabilities of the version OpenAI deemed acceptable to give them access to.
jabradoodle 3y ago
How would you know, if it's not public?