6 ms·

There is a 50-50 chance AI will get more intelligent than humans

6 points by kukx 2y ago

hcrean 2y ago
Humanity is possibly racing to it's own destruction by making a buck along the way. Humanity is possibly about to breed home appliances that pathfind our way to greater knowledge than we could ever have gotten to on our own. AI might hit a wall and not progress for many years. Only time will tell...
coldtea 2y ago
Yes, 50-50 in the old joke sense of "it will either happen or not happen".
WheelsAtLarge 2y ago
I can see a situation where multiple AI systems will be connected to simulate human intelligence so you can ask it any question and it will have an answer. It will also be able to outline a whole project into a plan that people can follow. In that sense, it will be smarter. That's a 100% chance. It's a way to easily access the world's knowledge. Search engines are on their way out. Google search will eventually be a relic. But will it be AGI? No. That's a close to 0% chance, not 0 but close in the next 20 years.
- whateverevetahw 2y ago
  Could it be possible that nothing it truly conscious? Maybe we're all cogs in the wheel of a giant chemical reaction? In the future, someone may build a robot with a ChatGPT brain, and maybe that will be what passes for as AGI. I haven't found any human endeavor that adequately explains consciousness. Consciousness and intelligence are probably two different things. AI is not conscious, and its intelligence varies, sometimes being very stupid, and sometimes being very smart. It's a system inside of another system.
- grantcas 2y ago
  [dead]
mytailorisrich 2y ago
This leaves out the key bit: "in the next 20 years". I think that if we leave out any deadlines then the probability is 100%.
soist 2y ago
Why isn't it 100%?
- fallingfrog 2y ago
  The remainder of the quote is “in the next 20 years”.
  - soist 2y ago
    Still doesn't make sense. So it's 100% after 20 years or does that mean if it doesn't happen in 20 years then it's never going to happen? In any case, these predictions have been happening for 50 years and it's always 20 years away.
Justsignedup 2y ago
For me, I'm not worried about artificial beings being smarter than us being able to reason about things better. I am far far far more worried what a corporation would do. Look at the TikTok algorithm and how good it is at hijacking our thought process. Do I need to fear it in and of itself? No. I fear the company using it to drive behaviors a certain way because it is profitable. I think Westworld had a great version of this. They create a super intelligent computer, and they could have just as easily asked it to solve climate change as to manipulate stocks. And ultimately the machine wasn't after anything, just working on a directive. And when asked to shut down, it did. (season 3) Thats the point here, its all about who gets to direct it, and if it is Elon Musk, I fear for our future.
chmaynard 2y ago
Astonishing! I assumed it was only 49.5-50.5 max.
RecycledEle 2y ago
The denial is strong. Find anyone, anywhere, who can answer as broad of a range of questions, as quickly, as well, as ChatGPT does. No human can match any one of those 3 dimensions of performance. AI won several years ago.
- Bilal_io 2y ago
  The question is about "intelligence" and your argument is regarding memory and access to information.
  - Erem 2y ago
    Are there standardized tests proxying intelligence in which GPT4o underperforms relative to the median human?
    - Jyaif 2y ago
      GPT4o can't pass a driving license test.
      - Erem 2y ago
        The written portion or the driving portion? I'm actually surprised that you can't stuff whichever state's manual into the AI's context and have it out-perform the median human. Do you have a citation for that? If you mean the driving portion, that falls somewhat outside the scope of an intelligence test since it relies on actually moving heavy machines in the real world.
  - RecycledEle 2y ago
    > The question is about "intelligence" and your argument is regarding memory and access to information. I think my answer concerns intelligence. Intelligence is the ability to solve problems.
    - Slyfox33 2y ago
      That's YOUR definition of intelligence anyway. LLMs fundamentally aren't intelligent because they cannot solve novel problems. It's literally just a complex auto complete that interpolates data from problems already solved by humans. It has no capacity to actually reason about anything.
Havoc 2y ago
Surely the question is when not if?
grantcas 2y ago
[dead]
theemachinist 2y ago
Insightful.

6 points by kukx 2y ago

Humanity is possibly racing to it's own destruction by making a buck along the way. Humanity is possibly about to breed home appliances that pathfind our way to greater knowledge than we could ever have gotten to on our own. AI might hit a wall and not progress for many years. Only time will tell...

coldtea 2y ago

Yes, 50-50 in the old joke sense of "it will either happen or not happen".

WheelsAtLarge 2y ago

I can see a situation where multiple AI systems will be connected to simulate human intelligence so you can ask it any question and it will have an answer. It will also be able to outline a whole project into a plan that people can follow. In that sense, it will be smarter. That's a 100% chance. It's a way to easily access the world's knowledge. Search engines are on their way out. Google search will eventually be a relic. But will it be AGI? No. That's a close to 0% chance, not 0 but close in the next 20 years.

whateverevetahw 2y ago
Could it be possible that nothing it truly conscious? Maybe we're all cogs in the wheel of a giant chemical reaction? In the future, someone may build a robot with a ChatGPT brain, and maybe that will be what passes for as AGI. I haven't found any human endeavor that adequately explains consciousness. Consciousness and intelligence are probably two different things. AI is not conscious, and its intelligence varies, sometimes being very stupid, and sometimes being very smart. It's a system inside of another system.
grantcas 2y ago
[dead]

mytailorisrich 2y ago

This leaves out the key bit: "in the next 20 years". I think that if we leave out any deadlines then the probability is 100%.

soist 2y ago

Why isn't it 100%?

fallingfrog 2y ago
The remainder of the quote is “in the next 20 years”.
- soist 2y ago
  Still doesn't make sense. So it's 100% after 20 years or does that mean if it doesn't happen in 20 years then it's never going to happen? In any case, these predictions have been happening for 50 years and it's always 20 years away.

Justsignedup 2y ago

For me, I'm not worried about artificial beings being smarter than us being able to reason about things better. I am far far far more worried what a corporation would do. Look at the TikTok algorithm and how good it is at hijacking our thought process. Do I need to fear it in and of itself? No. I fear the company using it to drive behaviors a certain way because it is profitable. I think Westworld had a great version of this. They create a super intelligent computer, and they could have just as easily asked it to solve climate change as to manipulate stocks. And ultimately the machine wasn't after anything, just working on a directive. And when asked to shut down, it did. (season 3) Thats the point here, its all about who gets to direct it, and if it is Elon Musk, I fear for our future.

chmaynard 2y ago

Astonishing! I assumed it was only 49.5-50.5 max.

RecycledEle 2y ago

The denial is strong. Find anyone, anywhere, who can answer as broad of a range of questions, as quickly, as well, as ChatGPT does. No human can match any one of those 3 dimensions of performance. AI won several years ago.

Bilal_io 2y ago
The question is about "intelligence" and your argument is regarding memory and access to information.
- Erem 2y ago
  Are there standardized tests proxying intelligence in which GPT4o underperforms relative to the median human?
  - Jyaif 2y ago
    GPT4o can't pass a driving license test.
    - Erem 2y ago
      The written portion or the driving portion? I'm actually surprised that you can't stuff whichever state's manual into the AI's context and have it out-perform the median human. Do you have a citation for that? If you mean the driving portion, that falls somewhat outside the scope of an intelligence test since it relies on actually moving heavy machines in the real world.
- RecycledEle 2y ago
  > The question is about "intelligence" and your argument is regarding memory and access to information. I think my answer concerns intelligence. Intelligence is the ability to solve problems.
  - Slyfox33 2y ago
    That's YOUR definition of intelligence anyway. LLMs fundamentally aren't intelligent because they cannot solve novel problems. It's literally just a complex auto complete that interpolates data from problems already solved by humans. It has no capacity to actually reason about anything.

Havoc 2y ago

Surely the question is when not if?

grantcas 2y ago

[dead]

theemachinist 2y ago

Insightful.