3 ms·
If there will be actual AGI (or super intelligence), none of these arguments hold. The machines will just be better than any programmer money can buy. Of cours
by jdmoreira 2y ago
If there will be actual AGI (or super intelligence), none of these arguments hold. The machines will just be better than any programmer money can buy.
Of course at that point every knowledge worker is probably unemployable anyway.
- varsketiz 2y agoWhat if AGI is extremely expensive to run?
- kaneryu 2y agothen we ask AGI how to make itself less expensive to run
- bdangubic 2y agoI'd ask it to run for free
- varsketiz 2y agoThe answer to that question is 42. Why do you assume AGI is smarter than some human?
- jdmoreira 2y agoWhy would humans be peak intelligence? There is even variation for intelligence within the species. We are probably just stuck on some local maxima that satisfies all the constraints of our environment. Current AI is already much smarter than many humans at many things.
- varsketiz 2y agoI'm not saying humans are peak intelligence.
- SJC_Hacker 2y agoTrue AGI would make every worker unemployable. The only reason why true androids aren't possible yet is software. The mechanics have been pretty much a solved problem.
- jdbernard 2y agoLol what. We can't even define "true intelligence" and you're telling me the "mechanics" are already solved? What do you even mean by that statement?
- SJC_Hacker 2y agoThey can build androids with the strength/dexterity/agility equal to / surpassing that of any human. Sight, vision and vestibular (sense of balance) were of course solved last century. Not sure about tactile feedback and taste/smell. The control systems/software is different problem, and then there is power (current gen lasts a few hours at most, depending on application this may be a problem or it may not be)
- jdbernard 2y agoI misread your original comment. I read "true AGI" where you said "true androids." I agree. Other than the control system, everything else is already there, or at least understood. But I think we are much farther away from "true intelligence" than AI boosters claim. We don't even know the path to it. We have guesses, but no hard evidence that those guesses will actually pan out.
- nexus_six 2y agoThis is like saying: "If we just had a stable way to create net energy from a fusion reactor, we'd solve all energy problems". Do we have a way to do that? No.
- jdmoreira 2y agoYes, we do. It's called reinforcement learning and compute
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Capricorn2481 2y agoYou got some compute hidden in your couch? There's plenty of reason to think there's not enough compute to achieve this, and there's little reason to think compute improves intelligence linearly.
- jdmoreira 2y agodon't you follow the news? Amazon is bidding on nuclear power plants. We will just build more energy sources. We have way too much leeway to go. Also optimizations are being built both in hardware and software. There is no foreseen barrier. Maybe data to do training but now the models have pivoted to test / inference compute and reinforcement learning and that seems to have no barrier except more compute and energy. That's what stargate is, UAE princes building datacenters in France is, etc… it's all in the news. So far, it seems like a straight line to AGI Maybe a barrier will appear but doesn't seem like it atm
- Capricorn2481 2y agoIgnoring how long it takes to build a nuclear power plant, and how we have limited resources to do so, is there anything to suggest they're doing that because of AI compute? From what I understand, they just want to be carbon neutral which is difficult to do when your compute needs increase exponentially.