3 ms·

But if you actually believe they'll be super AI in a year or two, why even bother with a product till then? Seems like the only focus should be getting there fi

But if you actually believe they'll be super AI in a year or two, why even bother with a product till then? Seems like the only focus should be getting there first. Unless of course you don't actually believe that.

AlwaysRock 2y ago
You think you need 7 trillion dollars to build chips to make that AI? You think you need a product that is appealing so you remain the market leader while you build that AI? You believe you'll build the super AI but your investors want something more than, "its coming" for the next few years? You come from a background of building products and you want to build a product? Seems like a lot of reasons why you would build a product, even if you think you're build a super AI.
crowcroft 2y ago
I think even the most bullish e/acc AI fanatic is probably not 100% sure AGI will be developed in a year or two, and so even in the most optimistic case you would want to hedge your bets.
- pton_xd 2y ago
  Maybe not a year or two but the e/acc fanatics I know are 99.9% convinced its happening within the next 4-5. As in, anything short of World War 3 and it's happening. Maybe even still happening.
  - RhodesianHunter 2y ago
    These don't seem like the brightest bulbs.
  - throwanem 2y ago
    Of course they're convinced. They're rubes. That's their job.
rrr_oh_man 2y ago
The way OpenAI protect their IP suggests to me that the USP is not that U.
digging 2y ago
Predictions aren't binary, they're probabilistic. If anyone "actually believes" we'll have AGI in 2 years, without any room for doubt, they're wrong.
calf 2y ago
They've disbanded their superlignment group, and their staff who were able to work on the problem more deeply (STEM people) have since quit, see https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=8047 https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=8047 (N.b. in the ex-employee author's pdf article mentioned above, a page dedicates his pdf to Ilya, who is also out of the company, so in context it's a pointed statement writing that dedication IMO)
- RhodesianHunter 2y ago
  This appears to project the last few years' growth continuously into the future, whereas a great many experts seem to be suggesting that we've hit a plateau. I tend to believe the plateau theory, given how AI development has occurred over the last several decades with huge leaps forward followed by winters.
  - throwanem 2y ago
    It also talks about "straight lines on a graph"...and promptly proceeds to illustrate this concept using a graph with a logarithmic scale. Combined with the author's evident belief that facilely restating the concept of hard-takeoff singularity (as "AI can replace an machine learning engineer by...") suffices to change the nature of the basic claim he's making, I didn't see any pressing need to read further. Singularitarian sophistry is hardly novel in 2024, and at this late date retains no meaningful capacity even to entertain.
  - calf 2y ago
    Your collection of experts seem to be different than mine, then (so I'm curious who you read instead, please let me know): Scott Aaronson (the blogger above) is a professor and definitely is more sanguine towards the written article. Dave Patterson (the Turing award professor of computer architecture) was interviewed last week, he said "We don't know what will happen!" or something like that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxVQsLA2ats&t=2045s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxVQsLA2ats&t=2045s One of my own professors (a CS theoretician ) said, at an AI seminar last year, that there seem to be no known barriers left to AGI (paraphrasing). Actually I'm personally on the fence, so while the pdf article discussed is not rigorous enough, it makes some interesting high-level arguments. One of them is that the recent growth needs to hit some threshold - this argument is not a continuous argument the way you had mentioned.

AlwaysRock 2y ago

You think you need 7 trillion dollars to build chips to make that AI? You think you need a product that is appealing so you remain the market leader while you build that AI? You believe you'll build the super AI but your investors want something more than, "its coming" for the next few years? You come from a background of building products and you want to build a product? Seems like a lot of reasons why you would build a product, even if you think you're build a super AI.

crowcroft 2y ago

I think even the most bullish e/acc AI fanatic is probably not 100% sure AGI will be developed in a year or two, and so even in the most optimistic case you would want to hedge your bets.

pton_xd 2y ago
Maybe not a year or two but the e/acc fanatics I know are 99.9% convinced its happening within the next 4-5. As in, anything short of World War 3 and it's happening. Maybe even still happening.
- RhodesianHunter 2y ago
  These don't seem like the brightest bulbs.
- throwanem 2y ago
  Of course they're convinced. They're rubes. That's their job.

rrr_oh_man 2y ago

The way OpenAI protect their IP suggests to me that the USP is not that U.

digging 2y ago

Predictions aren't binary, they're probabilistic. If anyone "actually believes" we'll have AGI in 2 years, without any room for doubt, they're wrong.

calf 2y ago

They've disbanded their superlignment group, and their staff who were able to work on the problem more deeply (STEM people) have since quit, see https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=8047 https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=8047 (N.b. in the ex-employee author's pdf article mentioned above, a page dedicates his pdf to Ilya, who is also out of the company, so in context it's a pointed statement writing that dedication IMO)

RhodesianHunter 2y ago
This appears to project the last few years' growth continuously into the future, whereas a great many experts seem to be suggesting that we've hit a plateau. I tend to believe the plateau theory, given how AI development has occurred over the last several decades with huge leaps forward followed by winters.
- throwanem 2y ago
  It also talks about "straight lines on a graph"...and promptly proceeds to illustrate this concept using a graph with a logarithmic scale. Combined with the author's evident belief that facilely restating the concept of hard-takeoff singularity (as "AI can replace an machine learning engineer by...") suffices to change the nature of the basic claim he's making, I didn't see any pressing need to read further. Singularitarian sophistry is hardly novel in 2024, and at this late date retains no meaningful capacity even to entertain.
- calf 2y ago
  Your collection of experts seem to be different than mine, then (so I'm curious who you read instead, please let me know): Scott Aaronson (the blogger above) is a professor and definitely is more sanguine towards the written article. Dave Patterson (the Turing award professor of computer architecture) was interviewed last week, he said "We don't know what will happen!" or something like that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxVQsLA2ats&t=2045s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxVQsLA2ats&t=2045s One of my own professors (a CS theoretician ) said, at an AI seminar last year, that there seem to be no known barriers left to AGI (paraphrasing). Actually I'm personally on the fence, so while the pdf article discussed is not rigorous enough, it makes some interesting high-level arguments. One of them is that the recent growth needs to hit some threshold - this argument is not a continuous argument the way you had mentioned.