3 ms·
> I'll be surprised if this event occurs before 2005 or after 2030. I'm not truly confident AGI will be achieved before 2030, and less so for ASI. But I do thi
by crackalamoo 2y ago
> I'll be surprised if this event occurs before 2005 or after 2030.
I'm not truly confident AGI will be achieved before 2030, and less so for ASI. But I do think it is quite plausible that we will achieve at least AGI by 2030. 6 years is a long time in AI, especially with the current scale of investment.
- cloudking 2y agoWhat is AGI and ASI? I think a fundamental issue here is both are sci-fi concepts without a clear agreement on the definitions. Each company claiming to work towards "AGI" has their own definition. How will someone claim they've achieved either, if we can't agree on the definitions?
- crackalamoo 2y agoThis is true. One definition I've heard for AGI is something that can replace any remote worker, but the definition is ultimately arbitrary. When "AI" was beating grandmasters at chess, this didn't matter as much. But we might be be close enough that making distinctions in these definitions becomes really important.
- nradov 2y agoI propose we define AGI as a "strong" form of the Turing test. It must be able to convince a jury of 12 tenured college professors drawn from a variety of academic disciplines that it's as intelligent as an average college freshman over a period of several days. So it need not be an expert in any subject but must be able to converse, pursue independent goals, reason, and learn — all in real time.
- ben_w 2y agoIndeed. The definition of AGI that OpenAI uses (or used) was of economic relevance. The one I use would encompass the original ChatGPT (3.5)*. I've seen threads here that (by my reading) opine that AGI is impossible because the commentor thinks humans can violate Gödel's incompleteness theorem (or equivalent) and obviously computers can't. ASI is easier to discuss (for now), because it's always beyond the best human. * weakly intelligent, but still an AI system, and it's much more general than anything we had before transformers were invented.
- ta93754829 2y agowe keep moving the goalposts, and that's not a bad thing. remember when Doom came out? How amazing and "realistic" we thought the graphics were? How ridiculous that seems now? We'll look back at ChatGPT4 the same way.
- Mistletoe 2y agoOr is ChatGPt4 4k TV, which is good enough for almost all of us and we are plateauing already? https://www.reddit.com/r/OLED/comments/fdc50f/8k_vs_4k_tvs_doubleblind_study_by_warner_bros_et/ https://www.reddit.com/r/OLED/comments/fdc50f/8k_vs_4k_tvs_d...
- crackalamoo 2y agoI don't think we're at a plateau. There's still a lot GPT-4 can't do. Given the progress we've seen so far with scaling, I think the next iterations will be a lot better. It might even take 10 or even 100x scale, but with increased investment and better hardware, that's not out of the question.
- dartos 2y agoI thought we’ve seen diminishing returns on benchmarks with the last wave of foundation models. I doubt we’ll see a linear improvement curve with regards to parameter scaling.
- Bengalilol 2y agoAnd now we have the LLMs self feeding their models (which may be either good or bad). This shouldn’t lead to short-term wide (as in AGI) efficiency. I bet this is a challenge.
- dartos 2y agoThere’s absolutely room for improvement. I think models themselves are plateauing, but out interfaces to them are not. Chat is probably not the best way to use LLMs. v0.dev has some really innovative ideas. That’s where there’s innovation to be had here imo.
- bee_rider 2y ago2030 seems a bit early to be “surprised” in the same sense that one would have been “surprised” to see a superintelligence before 2006, though.
- paulpauper 2y agoIt's always in 10-30 years. GPT is the closest to such a thing yet still so far from what was envisioned.