6 ms·
Sama says "build for GPT-5 and AGI Now; GPT-5 in 2024, AGI in 2025"
- siva7 3y agoHow can you build for something that doesn't even exist?
- spzb 3y agoAnd never will (for any reasonable human lifespan-reflecting definition of "never")
- ppaattrriicckk 3y agoThat's quite the statement. What makes you so certain that we won't have AGI within 30-60 years?
- spzb 3y agoCounterpoint : what makes you think we will?
- miohtama 3y agoBy rising VC money
- tibbydudeza 3y agoIrrational hubris in 2000 has become irrational faith.
- selalipop 3y agoSay your service would cost an unsustainable amount with GPT 4 because of excessive prompting needed, or you need to retry X out of every Y generations. You could eat the cost temporarily knowing when GPT 5 arrives you'll be able to cut down on that significantly. Or you build a simpler product that gets a foot in the door in organizations knowing that you'll have an additional value proposition that's enabled by an incremental improvement in capabilities.
- badgersnake 3y agoGuess he wants the sweet VC checks to keep rolling in.
- rf15 3y ago"Build for our future platform now. Prepare to be a customer."
- onion2k 3y agoAssuming he's right (which is a big assumption, but much more interesting than calling BS), society is going to require some massive changes to carry on functioning. Imagine a world where all knowledge work can be replaced with a clever bot that actually gets things right. Entire industries will collapse. Things we value highly will become close to worthless (largely depending on how much OpenAI charges of course). It'll be so weird. The idea of never paying an accountant or a lawyer again is very appealing.
- zvmaz 3y agoWe haven't seen what AGI would look like, yet. If I understood correctly, what we have are statistical language models. I am far from knowledgeable in this domain, so I defer to Chomsky et al. here [1]. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20230308110003/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/08/opinion/noam-chomsky-chatgpt-ai.html https://web.archive.org/web/20230308110003/https://www.nytim...
- astrobe_ 3y agoYes, it would be like aliens saying "hello". Trying to anticipate what this supposedly foreseeable future will be, is futile.
- bamboozled 3y agoIt’s a weird time. Elon is similar. The guy says the most ludicrous things but seems to have “delivered” so it’s not easy to discount his insanely stupid comments. Sama is another one. He is part of some sort of success story, makes a bunch of radical 4d chess type claims, so you can’t discount everything he says, however, even if what he says is true, how do you “build for AGI”? The dude sounds legit bonkers, but again, he has some type of cred because his team delivered a working product. It almost feels like this is a common play adopted by a lot of tech elites. It’s not a coincidence. “If you find yourself part of some success story, any success, use it to your advantage. Use your ‘cred’ to drive a lot of hype and cash out, using all the cash you accumulate hire hard working people, have them deliver something which in turn keeps you looking ‘credible’, make more outlandish claims, gain more funding, rinse wash repeat” I feel Jeff Bezos is an example of someone who doesn’t do this. Seems like a practical guy who works really hard and avoids (mostly) making silly claims.
- michaeljwalker 3y ago“Use your ‘cred’ to drive a lot of hype and cash out” you realize that Sam doesn’t own equity in OpenAI, and Elon lives far below his means, right? do you really think they’re trying to play the game to “cash out?”
- eurekin 3y agoThey seem to be following the same circulating memo :) Obviously must work, otherwise they would not have done it
- bamboozled 3y agoDo you see it too though ? It really feels like a social device. I can’t help fall back to Musk. So much of his success is due to not only his own hard work, but plenty of others, yet he is absolutely wonderful at marketing it like it’s his own and we should hang off everything he says. Even when he does credit his team, it’s brief and then it’s straight back to the hype show. Of course I’m not suggesting the dude is a complete fraud, he is part of some brilliant things, but it doesn’t mean he isn’t taking advantage of it. I mean it is a smart way of operating and it totally works. I just don’t think it’s honest. Sam Altman seems to operate by the exact same playbook, I’d say he is a novice player compared to Elon though.
- theshrike79 3y agoPlease don't start shortening Sam Altman to "Sama", very few people understand who or what is a Sama without looking it up first.
- ksec 3y agoIts the same with Elon Musk to "Elmu", really annoying.
- MyFirstSass 3y agoNot just annoying but extremely cringeworthy also, like he's some cute elementary school buddy. These are some ice cold very powerful people, let's always remember that. Don't create parasocial relationships to them like some desperate pawn.
- fifteen1506 3y agoA pun on Altman-sama?
- binarysolo 3y agoIt's his online (HN/X) handle
- bjorglo 3y ago[dead]
- cracrecry 3y agoFor me Sama is something related to Asian religion.
- tibbydudeza 3y agoI sincerely hope he is not experimenting with ketamine or some other concoctions the SV bros are on these days because it sure sounds like it. This is clearly not backed up by how long it took to do ChatGPT and now a massive leap to AGI ???.
- TheAceOfHearts 3y agoMakes me wonder what kind of progress they've had internally at OpenAI to be making such claims. So far I haven't even seen any particularly useful or compelling definitions of AGI; it's usually handwavy, incredibly vague, or defined in terms of something else which just shifts the problem around. The general sentiment I've gotten from following a bunch of AI researchers on Twitter is that we're still multiple key insights away from being able to build AGI. So either Sam knows something we don't or he's hoping to we get lucky in the next 2 years. I hope he's wrong and we actually get AGI by 2024.
- ilaksh 3y agoYou didn't define AGI either.
- TheAceOfHearts 3y agoI didn't define AGI because I'm also confused about the term. As the term is currently used, it seems to directionally gesture vaguely towards something that's mostly based on gut-based sensing. Maybe it's one of those "when you see it you'll know" kind of things. Or maybe we'll have to experiment with building it first before we can narrow down the exact boundaries of how it's defined.
- pointlessone 3y agoThere’s a relatively mainstream definition of AGI: an AGI could learn to accomplish any intellectual task that human beings or animals can perform. Sometimes agency is included in there to facilitate the learning and accomplishment. I think it’s as good a definition for a major milestone in AI development as any.
- dr_dshiv 3y agoThe other mainstream definition comes from Peter Norvig , author of the most mainstream textbook on artificial intelligence (or at least the most cited). He defines AGI relative to narrow AI, using the development of general purpose digital computing as an analogy. Before general purpose digital computing, there were a wide range of specialized narrow forms of computing. Thus, he concludes that AGI is already here (it is similarly general purpose) but in the early days. I find his view pragmatic and helpful. https://www.noemamag.com/artificial-general-intelligence-is-already-here https://www.noemamag.com/artificial-general-intelligence-is-...
- pointlessone 3y agoI’m a little sceptical of AGI next year. Even if pushed to its limit it’s just 2 years. I suspect some sort of shenanigans. Like, rebranding multi-modal AI to general AI. I guess, one gets to invent a new term if your model can, say, process text, sound, and video, let’s add spatial manipulation, too, just to differentiate from current multi-modal models. Or G might stand for somthing else than “general”. Another aspect is that Altman doesn’t say any specific dates, even years. Two big step ups in two years seem like a little too fast.
- dorkwood 3y agoDid Altman actually say 2025? The Tweet claims he said "relatively soon" and then the poster seems to take that to mean 2025 for no reason?
- jasperstory 3y agoNo. I was there – I wouldn't read much into the tweet, it's heavily editorialized for engagement.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ksec 3y agoI seriously doubt we will reach AGI in 2025, or next iteration of GPT after GPT-5. What this does however suggest they have something that will make substantial improvement in next GPT, and something to further improve on the one after. What may likely to happen is that GPT-6 ( In 2026 or later rather than 2025 ) will be good enough for lots of thing, as we further refine it and improve on it for another 1 or 2 iteration. This whole process in the next 5 - 6 years will unlock a lot of value in other industry. Enough to fuel another 10 years of investment cycle. I still dont believe we will reach AGI by 2030 though.
- fifteen1506 3y agoNOTE: I know nothing about this area besides what I read from tech articles. The existance of multiple centers of decision on latest LLMs surprised me. I'd venture to guess either locality nodes will evolve or will need to be made happen to reduce the necessary bandwidth for LLM. By a jump of logic, I'd also venture to guess that will need to make it happen before we reach AGI. Additionally, physiological nodes will also need to happen before we have human-like AGI. Either way, just making things up here. Not a professional.
- admissionsguy 3y agoThe "ChatGPT for teams" and the underwhelming GPT App store would be unnecessary if the headline was true. It more looks like they are looking to build out a product based on the existing ChatGPT capabilities. I predict any improvements will be slow and iterative.
- TaylorAlexander 3y agoI’m getting strong “full self driving by the end of the year (2017)” vibes from this. His business is very hype-based so he’s working the hype machine. AGI is a fantastic promise in this regard because it’s not falsifiable - there is no broadly agreed upon and well understood definition of AGI. Instead the people listening to his promise imagine whatever they want and then get excited. By the time 2025 comes along there will be a new promise. They’ll claim they have AGI but it only handles text, images, and audio, perhaps. Then they will say “and in three years we will double the modalities and have AGI plus” and it will still be broadly meaningless. Meanwhile I’m a robotics engineer and I need systems that can understand large amounts of data in real time and I doubt their 2025 “AGI” will be able to intelligently process LIDAR data. Such narrow systems are hardly general in my eyes, even if they are very compelling chat bots.
- timeon 3y ago> They’ll claim they have AGI but it only handles text, images, and audio, perhaps. We had to rename AI to AGI now when we have 'AI'.
- orbital-decay 3y ago>there is no broadly agreed upon and well understood definition of AGI OpenAI follow their own definition of AGI, and it's "highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work". [0] Whether that includes jobs that require robotics is an open question. [0] https://openai.com/charter https://openai.com/charter
- zarzavat 3y agoRobotics in a simulated world perhaps could come under the umbrella of AGI. Building the hardware is definitely out of scope of the field of ML.
- TaylorAlexander 3y agoThanks for the reference. I think this only reinforces my point. They’re going to claim something that does economically valuable work on the computer is AGI, but when I hear “most economically valuable work” I think “build buildings, operate factories, grow food”. We’ve just never seen a universal multimodal learner (all modalities) or a system with its own goals and motivations that can learn on its own without massive datasets (meaning things without datasets are hard for it to learn, so how does it for example learn how to do PCB design or CAD modeling), so they’re talking about such a leap it’s hard to fathom. I mean hell take PCB design for example. That’s actually on the computer but there’s no big dataset in existence that actually explains PCB design in a way a system would understand, so approaches that rely on a dataset for training simply can’t begin to solve that task. And if you can’t even do that economically valuable task on the computer then I don’t believe you have AGI. I am quite sure that they’re cooking up some fascinating stuff but I doubt they are going to have a system that can do machine design or PCB design just to name a few important and extremely economically valuable tasks.
- anonfromsomewhe 3y agoOne part I really don't understand is, so far any GPT sucks at math or makes very basic mistakes with numbers. There were so many examples. But how will design of next LLM will improve that with making math proficient? AGI without math would not make any sense?
- ReDeiPirati 3y agoTech leaders are so bad at making predictions. Some recents examples: self driving cars should have happened around 2021, not there yet. Elon's claimed to launch Tesla robot taxi around 22/23, and we don't see anything like that. That's said, I do believe that GTP-5 will be out in a year, but re:AGI is a such a bold prediction.
- jiggawatts 3y agoI was just driving this afternoon and I saw a "trucks and buses must keep right" sign on a road where the right lane was blocked due to construction work. I realised that in 2020 I would have assumed that an AI car autopilot would have no hope with conflicting logical constraints such this, reading English traffic signs, etc... Now? In early 2024? There are multi-modal AIs that can read arbitrary road signs, understand the text (in practically any language), and follow the logic to a correct conclusion. Would I trust GPT-4V to control my car? No, the technology just isn't ready yet. However, it's clearly possible now, whereas very recently it seemed impossible. Currently, Tesla autopilot is a complex mix of multiple models, a bunch of C++ code, and more. It's "traditional software" with bits of AI in it. I suspect that within just a few years, a pure AI model could be trained directly on video collected from the Tesla fleet, in much the same way that GPT was trained with text from the Internet and books. Sprinkle in a pre-trained GPT-5 level LLM for reading and logic, and ta-da, you have a generally intelligent driver agent that can understand spoken instructions, can read road signs, receive traffic alerts over 5G, and react appropriately. It would have learned from billions of hours of driving and a million accidents. Just like GPT, it'll have a wider range of experience than any human, prepared for any eventuality that actually occurs on roads.
- bamboozled 3y agoBut let’s be real, we don’t have that yet, nor do we have something that operates like that in realtime, locally in your car.
- jiggawatts 3y agoIt’s like the difference between SpaceX Starship development and faster-than-light spaceship development. We know that we can make a bigger reusable rocket, it’s just a matter of working out the details. We have no idea if FTL is even possible, let alone how. I feel like AI is at the same point: technology demonstrators have proven that there is a way forward, now we just need oodles of computer power to make it happen. Chat bots that can answer complex English questions used to be pure science fiction just a year ago!
- tmelm 3y agoIf Sam genuinely believed that AGI (assumption: capable of achieving some sort of singularity, or at least being capable enough to replace x% of human knowledge workers) would materialize in the near future, why would he then invest any time or money into these YC companies, given that most of them, if not all, would be made completely obsolete by such a technology? Occam's razor would imply that he is simply encouraging future YC batches to build products on top of OAI products, with "AGI" being some sort of multi modal GPT.
- conorgdaly 3y agoEnglish comprehension fail for OP and seemingly every responder in this thread. Title is blatantly incorrect. "Sama" did not say that. The quoted part from Sama seems to be > @sama suggested ppl build w/ the mindset GPT-5 and AGI will be achieved "relatively soon";" The (not Sama) person who wrote the tweet added their own question > Expect @OpenAI #GPT5 in 2024 and #AGI in 2025?
- timeon 3y ago> relatively soon This sounds more real.
- ReDeiPirati 3y agoAlthough the tweet is not clear, people who were at that presentation seem to confirm that's exactly what he said. There are a few of those sparse in this thread.
- ilaksh 3y agoThings have been improving rapidly. Try interpreting AGI conservatively, i.e. not ASI, not alive or full simulation of a human, just something that can do all or almost all human cognitive tasks. GPT-4 can handle many human tasks with the right configuration. There might be multiple ways to improve things like reasoning. Larger, more efficient and better curated datasets. Or maybe there is a way to embed some kind of TorchOpt stuff inside the models. Baking in batches of tree of thought. Micro development environments or logic programming tightly integrated with inference. Etc. Also, the emphasis on more animal-like abilities than LeCun is focusing on could start to pay off within a couple of years. Given a conservative interpretation of "AGI", I take what Altman said at face value. They need to have ambitious goals because of the rate of progress, level of competition, high stakes, and very high level talent.
- bob1029 3y agoWhen someone says "AGI" what does that actually mean to you today? Every time I talk with others about this it feels like we have wildly different interpretations and expectations. Similar to "cloud native", "crypto", et. al. For me, the most basic level of "AGI" is: I can provide a human instruction and the intelligence will iteratively work through a known problem space with known tools until it reaches a satisfactory outcome, or realizes it is unable to complete the task with an explanation regarding why. How this outcome is achieved is not really relevant to me. The effect on the business is all that really matters. The LLM doesn't seem like the important part anymore. We figured out a pretty damn good hammer. It bangs those nails in clean pretty much one swing every time. We need to stop focusing on the hammer and begin focusing on the framing.
- jacknews 3y agoSeems hyperbolic, but if AGI really is arriving in 2025, what would you build? Would it be worth building anything? AGI will be able to build it far cheaper, and in any case, who's going to use a travel-booking website or whatever, if they can just tell an AGI to 'book me a holiday', etc. The only thing that makes sense is a lunge for patents, trademarks, etc, ie ownership.
- etewiah 3y agoAnyone know why this has been flagged???
- tim333 3y agoNo but the title >Sama says "build for GPT-5 and AGI Now; GPT-5 in 2024, AGI in 2025" is basically bollocks. He didn't say that.