4 ms·

I’ve had AI influencers reaching out to inquire about the bridge I have for sale, everyday for the past 2 years. We’ll never see AGI in its original definition

by F7F7F7 2y ago

I’ve had AI influencers reaching out to inquire about the bridge I have for sale, everyday for the past 2 years. We’ll never see AGI in its original definition in our lifetimes. It doesn’t take being a rocket…company buying billionaire.

bbor 2y ago
He started the company - I’m no Elon fan myself, but that’s the case. Also, you’re disagreeing with him anyway; he’s saying that starting a company who’s defining purpose was to avoid a for-profit race to AGI and then immediately pivot to ruthless for-profit competition as soon as you have a real shot at your goal (+ an advantage) is deceptive. And yeah, I’ve gotta give it to him: tragic. Tho I guess that’s “Homeric” or “Hellenic” deceit?
- Spooky23 2y ago
  Elon got out-Eloned. I think the bigger tale is how Microsoft is essentially getting swindled here, and Zuckerberg looks like a man of the people somehow.
- ToucanLoucan 2y ago
  > He started the company - I’m no Elon fan myself, but that’s the case. Point out what he did that couldn't be done by Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, or Mark Zuckerburg, or in fact that was done by Jeff Bezos with his own company. And I don't mean some ephemeral "well he wanted to!" yeah big fucking deal. I want to convert a DeLorean to an EV powertrain to commute to work. I want to have a garage big enough for 5 cars and a shop. I want to have a sex bot that me and the wife can share. Anyone can fucking want something. What did Elon bring to the table besides wanting it, and money? Being an investor is not a skill. Paying for things is not a job. Buying stuff or people is not a trade. And I'm sick to death of people buying his and other's PR saying that paying someone else to do cool shit is the same thing as doing cool shit.
  - CamperBob2 2y ago
    Point out what he did that couldn't be done by Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, or Mark Zuckerburg, or in fact that was done by Jeff Bezos with his own company. "If you were going to start Facebook, you'd have started Facebook." - apocryphally credited to Zuckerberg. You do know that Bezos started his rocket company before SpaceX, right? If he could beat SpaceX, why hasn't he? As for sex bots, that'll happen soon enough, be patient. At this point there is nothing but a few incremental advances in robotics and material science standing in the way of implementing the bots from Garland's Ex Machina or Spielberg's AI. The software side is basically working now.
    - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
      > "If you were going to start Facebook, you'd have started Facebook." - apocryphally credited to Zuckerberg. No, I wouldn't, because I have a soul and I don't want to light the mental health of the entire world on fire no matter how much money it makes me. > You do know that Bezos started his rocket company before SpaceX, right? If he could beat SpaceX, why hasn't he? I don't know what "beat" means in this context nor am I particularly interested in billionare's dick measuring contests which are funded in part by the taxpayer. My point isn't that someone did it. I'm sick to death of Elon's mythmaking and I'm going to shout into the void every time it comes up until the day I die that that man hasn't done shit besides write checks. Say what you will about Fuckerburg, and I've said plenty, but at least he actually wrote some of Facebook's code.
      - luro 2y ago
        There is an art to check writing, I’ll remind you.
    - blueprint 2y ago
      > If he could beat SpaceX, why hasn't he? Because Elon lied to humanity about their mission, in order to secure his position. Bezos didn't. Can't you find any other examples of this in history? Yeah, there are a lot of them, and it's probably why humanity are effectively still slaves and stuck on this planet, years behind where we should be. Time to wake up. Humanity can't blame anyone else anymore. As an aside... the argument that space is less hospitable than Earth doesn't work anymore when "smart people" only say that only to avoid doing the prep work they'd need to avoid an Earth that can and will become imminently inhospitable due to up to ten different scenarios. But by all means, guys, keep ignoring reality because you think you know better. How quickly humans forget, and how amazingly deep their ignorance is of what only recently transpired.
ToucanLoucan 2y ago
I wouldn't be comfortable saying we'll never see AGI in our lifetimes. I've seen incredible progress since I was a kiddo and computers were these huge machines that took up an entire desk, not to mention that only a decade prior to that, they were machines that took up entire warehouses. And now, I carry around a computer who's primary function is organizing my life and helping me kill time, and it has hundreds of times more power stuffed into a little rectangle that runs the entire day in my pocket. I wouldn't say it's impossible by any stretch. That said, I think it strains the hell out of credulity to say a fancy chatbot is getting anywhere close to that, especially since we apparently had to give it every word mankind has written up to this point just to get it to a stage of "mostly good at grammar, still makes tons of shit up." I just don't think this is the route there.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- danielbln 2y ago
  While I agree with your general sentiment, let's not sell LLMs short. These things would be firmly scifi not even 5 years ago and they are significantly more powerful than "mostly good at grammar". They do still make shit up, I give you that.
CamperBob2 2y ago
We’ll never see AGI in its original definition in our lifetimes. It doesn’t take being a rocket…company buying billionaire. No, because whenever somebody says they've achieved it, someone else -- maybe you -- will say they haven't. The question will never be settled to everyone's satisfaction. We don't know what intelligence is, or how to measure it objectively, much less how to define "general intelligence." So it's hard to say whether current approaches to AI will get there or not. I see it as a tool to be used by people, one that may evolve into the most powerful tool we've ever built. I don't find the question of "intelligence" all that interesting.
- Barrin92 2y ago
  > whenever somebody says they've achieved it, someone else -- maybe you -- will say they haven't And as long as that discussion still makes sense it's pretty obvious that we haven't achieved it. There's a very clear inflection point, when anything deserving that label actually exists we'll have 50% economic growth a year, the 50 most popular professions will be done by machines, the cost of science will fall by magnitudes because everyone can spawn a hundred scientists with the click of a mouse, and you'll walk out the door and the world will look to you like the 1950s looked to someone from 1500. We aren't even going to be capable of haggling about arcane theoretical differences.
IshKebab 2y ago
Bold prediction. Only 15 years ago state of the art was barely more than recognising digits. Now you can have a full on voice conversation with an AI.
ALittleLight 2y ago
We have AGI, in it's original definition, now - it's just human level rather than superhuman. ChatGPT, without being specifically programmed to, can summarize a text, write a program, play chess, explain a joke, translate, explain or create a poem, and just handle arbitrary inputs in text. On some measures ChatGPT is better than human, on some measures, like ARC, it's worse - but even there it's not worse than the worst human. ChatGPT is artificial, certainly, general, in the sense that it handles a wide range of inputs, and intelligent in the sense that it can solve problems and make predictions. The intelligence of LLMs is likely to increase in the near term future - better hardware, better training, distilling to smaller models, architecture improvements, better augmentations (like RAG), better use of test time computer etc.

by F7F7F7 2y ago

bbor 2y ago

He started the company - I’m no Elon fan myself, but that’s the case. Also, you’re disagreeing with him anyway; he’s saying that starting a company who’s defining purpose was to avoid a for-profit race to AGI and then immediately pivot to ruthless for-profit competition as soon as you have a real shot at your goal (+ an advantage) is deceptive. And yeah, I’ve gotta give it to him: tragic. Tho I guess that’s “Homeric” or “Hellenic” deceit?

Spooky23 2y ago
Elon got out-Eloned. I think the bigger tale is how Microsoft is essentially getting swindled here, and Zuckerberg looks like a man of the people somehow.
ToucanLoucan 2y ago
> He started the company - I’m no Elon fan myself, but that’s the case. Point out what he did that couldn't be done by Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, or Mark Zuckerburg, or in fact that was done by Jeff Bezos with his own company. And I don't mean some ephemeral "well he wanted to!" yeah big fucking deal. I want to convert a DeLorean to an EV powertrain to commute to work. I want to have a garage big enough for 5 cars and a shop. I want to have a sex bot that me and the wife can share. Anyone can fucking want something. What did Elon bring to the table besides wanting it, and money? Being an investor is not a skill. Paying for things is not a job. Buying stuff or people is not a trade. And I'm sick to death of people buying his and other's PR saying that paying someone else to do cool shit is the same thing as doing cool shit.
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  Point out what he did that couldn't be done by Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, or Mark Zuckerburg, or in fact that was done by Jeff Bezos with his own company. "If you were going to start Facebook, you'd have started Facebook." - apocryphally credited to Zuckerberg. You do know that Bezos started his rocket company before SpaceX, right? If he could beat SpaceX, why hasn't he? As for sex bots, that'll happen soon enough, be patient. At this point there is nothing but a few incremental advances in robotics and material science standing in the way of implementing the bots from Garland's Ex Machina or Spielberg's AI. The software side is basically working now.
  - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
    > "If you were going to start Facebook, you'd have started Facebook." - apocryphally credited to Zuckerberg. No, I wouldn't, because I have a soul and I don't want to light the mental health of the entire world on fire no matter how much money it makes me. > You do know that Bezos started his rocket company before SpaceX, right? If he could beat SpaceX, why hasn't he? I don't know what "beat" means in this context nor am I particularly interested in billionare's dick measuring contests which are funded in part by the taxpayer. My point isn't that someone did it. I'm sick to death of Elon's mythmaking and I'm going to shout into the void every time it comes up until the day I die that that man hasn't done shit besides write checks. Say what you will about Fuckerburg, and I've said plenty, but at least he actually wrote some of Facebook's code.
    - luro 2y ago
      There is an art to check writing, I’ll remind you.
  - blueprint 2y ago
    > If he could beat SpaceX, why hasn't he? Because Elon lied to humanity about their mission, in order to secure his position. Bezos didn't. Can't you find any other examples of this in history? Yeah, there are a lot of them, and it's probably why humanity are effectively still slaves and stuck on this planet, years behind where we should be. Time to wake up. Humanity can't blame anyone else anymore. As an aside... the argument that space is less hospitable than Earth doesn't work anymore when "smart people" only say that only to avoid doing the prep work they'd need to avoid an Earth that can and will become imminently inhospitable due to up to ten different scenarios. But by all means, guys, keep ignoring reality because you think you know better. How quickly humans forget, and how amazingly deep their ignorance is of what only recently transpired.

ToucanLoucan 2y ago

I wouldn't be comfortable saying we'll never see AGI in our lifetimes. I've seen incredible progress since I was a kiddo and computers were these huge machines that took up an entire desk, not to mention that only a decade prior to that, they were machines that took up entire warehouses. And now, I carry around a computer who's primary function is organizing my life and helping me kill time, and it has hundreds of times more power stuffed into a little rectangle that runs the entire day in my pocket. I wouldn't say it's impossible by any stretch. That said, I think it strains the hell out of credulity to say a fancy chatbot is getting anywhere close to that, especially since we apparently had to give it every word mankind has written up to this point just to get it to a stage of "mostly good at grammar, still makes tons of shit up." I just don't think this is the route there.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
danielbln 2y ago
While I agree with your general sentiment, let's not sell LLMs short. These things would be firmly scifi not even 5 years ago and they are significantly more powerful than "mostly good at grammar". They do still make shit up, I give you that.

CamperBob2 2y ago

We’ll never see AGI in its original definition in our lifetimes. It doesn’t take being a rocket…company buying billionaire. No, because whenever somebody says they've achieved it, someone else -- maybe you -- will say they haven't. The question will never be settled to everyone's satisfaction. We don't know what intelligence is, or how to measure it objectively, much less how to define "general intelligence." So it's hard to say whether current approaches to AI will get there or not. I see it as a tool to be used by people, one that may evolve into the most powerful tool we've ever built. I don't find the question of "intelligence" all that interesting.

Barrin92 2y ago
> whenever somebody says they've achieved it, someone else -- maybe you -- will say they haven't And as long as that discussion still makes sense it's pretty obvious that we haven't achieved it. There's a very clear inflection point, when anything deserving that label actually exists we'll have 50% economic growth a year, the 50 most popular professions will be done by machines, the cost of science will fall by magnitudes because everyone can spawn a hundred scientists with the click of a mouse, and you'll walk out the door and the world will look to you like the 1950s looked to someone from 1500. We aren't even going to be capable of haggling about arcane theoretical differences.

IshKebab 2y ago

Bold prediction. Only 15 years ago state of the art was barely more than recognising digits. Now you can have a full on voice conversation with an AI.

ALittleLight 2y ago

We have AGI, in it's original definition, now - it's just human level rather than superhuman. ChatGPT, without being specifically programmed to, can summarize a text, write a program, play chess, explain a joke, translate, explain or create a poem, and just handle arbitrary inputs in text. On some measures ChatGPT is better than human, on some measures, like ARC, it's worse - but even there it's not worse than the worst human. ChatGPT is artificial, certainly, general, in the sense that it handles a wide range of inputs, and intelligent in the sense that it can solve problems and make predictions. The intelligence of LLMs is likely to increase in the near term future - better hardware, better training, distilling to smaller models, architecture improvements, better augmentations (like RAG), better use of test time computer etc.