4 ms·

“We are now confident we know how to build AGI as we have traditionally understood it. We believe that, in 2025, we may see the first AI agents “join the workfo

“We are now confident we know how to build AGI as we have traditionally understood it. We believe that, in 2025, we may see the first AI agents “join the workforce” and materially change the output of companies.”

minimaxir 2y ago
Through that juxtaposition, Sam is likely going to claim that some implementation of AI agents will be AGI. That's going to be very hard to argue.
- ggm 2y ago
  His confidence is misplaced. He doesn't get to determine if AGI has been achieved. Right now, it's marketing speak. What he's selling is brand Altman.
  - karlgkk 2y ago
    Or he knows more than he’s letting on. Either way, the AI bubble is going to start popping if he can’t demonstrate meaningful progress - into the realm of making decisions and taking actions - within the next year. Frankly, I think he’s exaggerating.
    - benatkin 2y ago
      Passing difficult tests is no small feat... https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1hj2tvj/its_happening_right_now/ https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1hj2tvj/its_ha...
      - minimaxir 2y ago
        Passing tests only by spending thousands in compute is good for research but not good for a recently-restructured-for-profit business.
      - ggm 2y ago
        Almost anything said from here on in will be an appeal to authority, but putting the logical fallacy issue to one side, that's a pretty lame chart. The y axis is highly contestable and essentially undefined. Reddit is not your friend in the citation stakes.
        benatkin 2y ago
        Dismissive are we? Quibbling about a clear hockey stick growth curve. These comments: > Now do the same for other evaluations, remove the o family, nudge the time scale a bit, and watch the same curve pop out. > This is called eval saturation, not tech singularity. ARC-2 is already in production btw. A reply: > You act like that isnt significant, people just hand wave "eval saturation" > The fact that we keep having to make new benchmarks because ai keep beating the ones we have is extremely significant. Agree with this. The pace has been mind boggling.
        daveguy 2y ago
        If you make the y axis "AGI points" you can make the graph look like whatever you want depending on how you define "AGI points". The pace has been impressive, but until hallucinations are addressed the more faith and capital you put behind an AI agent, the more you risk losing.
- energy123 2y ago
  Their definition of AGI in their agreement with Microsoft is a system that makes $100 billion in profits. Note that they have an incentive to not get a system classified as AGI.
- plch2475 2y ago
  Hard to argue against, or in favor of?
lamename 2y ago
They will certainly change the output, as we've already seen, likely not for the better unless something changes.
easton 2y ago
Can they square “we know how to build AGI” with “a bunch of our executive team has left in the past 12 months when they clearly knew what he was talking about”? Why would you leave if AGI was just around the corner? (Which is to say, it isn’t. This has to be LLMs: the final frontier)
- yo-cuddles 2y ago
  That's the most damning thing: they have no warchest from LLM's, no vast profits to propel them to the next big thing. It HAS to be LLM's to AGI or bust if Openai even has a shot at it's foundational mission. If they don't make back their VC money, they won't even be able to fundraise for the next big thing when it comes, investors aren't going to double down when OAI has has basically dropped their initial project with no real returns From the frankly delusional levels of hype they've been pushing, they took a wrong turn and they don't have the cash to double back
benatkin 2y ago
It should be nothing personnel in the sense of LLMs not being considered people. It's seeming that it will more likely be nothing personnel in terms of nothing personnel, kid.
friend_Fernando 2y ago
The most interesting argument is about the ratio of the marginal value of labor to the marginal value of everything else. Let's call it MVLE. In prehistory, land was plentiful and hunting/gathering skill was scarce, so MVLE was high. In the middle ages, the population had exploded and arable land had become scarce. MVLE dropped dramatically. In the industrial revolution, capital accumulation began, and MVLE began rising. Once labor costs were high enough, productivity became king, and services and information goods became more prominent. MVLE rose much further. Note the seemingly accidental correlation between MVLE, self-determination and human rights. Now we're at a crossroads. There's a possibility that MVLE might completely bottom out. One edge outcome is a world with 100 trillionaires, 1000000 concubines, a bunch of butlers and hair stylists, and no other humans. The key question is: whose utility will be maximized? It's clear that democracy's cracks have turned into fractures. Half of the population has an IQ below 100 and can be gulled into voting themselves into oblivion.
- d4mi3n 2y ago
  > Half of the population has an IQ below 100 and can be gulled into voting themselves into oblivion. While technically true, I’d caution against assuming IQ is at all representative of average practical or applied intelligence. There’s plenty of writing out there outlining the issues with IQ as a measurement. I also think the problems we’re struggling with—insofar as the ethics of utilization of AI—boil down to humanity’s overall inability thus far to reach consensus on what we want to optimize our society for: the most good for the most people, the most good for some people, or something completely orthogonal to good or bad for any number of people (pursuit of knowledge, culture, unity, whatever). Regardless, a lot of folks seem to have good and widely agreed upon ideas of what we do not want and I’d love to see more conversations around how we prevent the worst case scenarios given the current political and economic environment.
  - friend_Fernando 2y ago
    > I’d caution against assuming IQ is at all representative of average practical or applied intelligence I don't necessarily disagree. Unfortunately, demagoguery has paid off handsomely in recent years. It has been refined as a discipline to the point that the "self-destruction gullibility threshold" might actually be much higher than 100.
modeless 2y ago
Strong words! And the other frontier labs won't be far behind them. The world is about to change massively. I don't see why people are calling this "vague". It's not an announcement of GPT-5 or anything, but this seems pretty specific to me. It's good to have confirmation that OpenAI doesn't see any serious barriers to achieving AGI in the next year or two. Lots of people arguing otherwise these days and this is a direct refutation.
- daveguy 2y ago
  And, if AGI is not achievable by OpenAI in the next two years, then this is about as close as you can slice fraud with a team of lawyers reviewing every public statement.

minimaxir 2y ago

Through that juxtaposition, Sam is likely going to claim that some implementation of AI agents will be AGI. That's going to be very hard to argue.

ggm 2y ago
His confidence is misplaced. He doesn't get to determine if AGI has been achieved. Right now, it's marketing speak. What he's selling is brand Altman.
- karlgkk 2y ago
  Or he knows more than he’s letting on. Either way, the AI bubble is going to start popping if he can’t demonstrate meaningful progress - into the realm of making decisions and taking actions - within the next year. Frankly, I think he’s exaggerating.
  - benatkin 2y ago
    Passing difficult tests is no small feat... https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1hj2tvj/its_happening_right_now/ https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1hj2tvj/its_ha...
    - minimaxir 2y ago
      Passing tests only by spending thousands in compute is good for research but not good for a recently-restructured-for-profit business.
    - ggm 2y ago
      Almost anything said from here on in will be an appeal to authority, but putting the logical fallacy issue to one side, that's a pretty lame chart. The y axis is highly contestable and essentially undefined. Reddit is not your friend in the citation stakes.
      - benatkin 2y ago
        Dismissive are we? Quibbling about a clear hockey stick growth curve. These comments: > Now do the same for other evaluations, remove the o family, nudge the time scale a bit, and watch the same curve pop out. > This is called eval saturation, not tech singularity. ARC-2 is already in production btw. A reply: > You act like that isnt significant, people just hand wave "eval saturation" > The fact that we keep having to make new benchmarks because ai keep beating the ones we have is extremely significant. Agree with this. The pace has been mind boggling.
        daveguy 2y ago
        If you make the y axis "AGI points" you can make the graph look like whatever you want depending on how you define "AGI points". The pace has been impressive, but until hallucinations are addressed the more faith and capital you put behind an AI agent, the more you risk losing.
energy123 2y ago
Their definition of AGI in their agreement with Microsoft is a system that makes $100 billion in profits. Note that they have an incentive to not get a system classified as AGI.
plch2475 2y ago
Hard to argue against, or in favor of?

lamename 2y ago

They will certainly change the output, as we've already seen, likely not for the better unless something changes.

easton 2y ago

Can they square “we know how to build AGI” with “a bunch of our executive team has left in the past 12 months when they clearly knew what he was talking about”? Why would you leave if AGI was just around the corner? (Which is to say, it isn’t. This has to be LLMs: the final frontier)

yo-cuddles 2y ago
That's the most damning thing: they have no warchest from LLM's, no vast profits to propel them to the next big thing. It HAS to be LLM's to AGI or bust if Openai even has a shot at it's foundational mission. If they don't make back their VC money, they won't even be able to fundraise for the next big thing when it comes, investors aren't going to double down when OAI has has basically dropped their initial project with no real returns From the frankly delusional levels of hype they've been pushing, they took a wrong turn and they don't have the cash to double back

benatkin 2y ago

It should be nothing personnel in the sense of LLMs not being considered people. It's seeming that it will more likely be nothing personnel in terms of nothing personnel, kid.

friend_Fernando 2y ago

The most interesting argument is about the ratio of the marginal value of labor to the marginal value of everything else. Let's call it MVLE. In prehistory, land was plentiful and hunting/gathering skill was scarce, so MVLE was high. In the middle ages, the population had exploded and arable land had become scarce. MVLE dropped dramatically. In the industrial revolution, capital accumulation began, and MVLE began rising. Once labor costs were high enough, productivity became king, and services and information goods became more prominent. MVLE rose much further. Note the seemingly accidental correlation between MVLE, self-determination and human rights. Now we're at a crossroads. There's a possibility that MVLE might completely bottom out. One edge outcome is a world with 100 trillionaires, 1000000 concubines, a bunch of butlers and hair stylists, and no other humans. The key question is: whose utility will be maximized? It's clear that democracy's cracks have turned into fractures. Half of the population has an IQ below 100 and can be gulled into voting themselves into oblivion.

d4mi3n 2y ago
> Half of the population has an IQ below 100 and can be gulled into voting themselves into oblivion. While technically true, I’d caution against assuming IQ is at all representative of average practical or applied intelligence. There’s plenty of writing out there outlining the issues with IQ as a measurement. I also think the problems we’re struggling with—insofar as the ethics of utilization of AI—boil down to humanity’s overall inability thus far to reach consensus on what we want to optimize our society for: the most good for the most people, the most good for some people, or something completely orthogonal to good or bad for any number of people (pursuit of knowledge, culture, unity, whatever). Regardless, a lot of folks seem to have good and widely agreed upon ideas of what we do not want and I’d love to see more conversations around how we prevent the worst case scenarios given the current political and economic environment.
- friend_Fernando 2y ago
  > I’d caution against assuming IQ is at all representative of average practical or applied intelligence I don't necessarily disagree. Unfortunately, demagoguery has paid off handsomely in recent years. It has been refined as a discipline to the point that the "self-destruction gullibility threshold" might actually be much higher than 100.

modeless 2y ago

Strong words! And the other frontier labs won't be far behind them. The world is about to change massively. I don't see why people are calling this "vague". It's not an announcement of GPT-5 or anything, but this seems pretty specific to me. It's good to have confirmation that OpenAI doesn't see any serious barriers to achieving AGI in the next year or two. Lots of people arguing otherwise these days and this is a direct refutation.

daveguy 2y ago
And, if AGI is not achievable by OpenAI in the next two years, then this is about as close as you can slice fraud with a team of lawyers reviewing every public statement.