18 ms·
AGI Is Still 30 Years Away – Ege Erdil and Tamay Besiroglu
- owenthejumper 2y agoI "love" how the interviewer keeps conflating intelligence with "Hey OpenAI will make $100b"
- pelagicAustral 2y agoTwo more weeks
- codingwagie 2y agoI just used o3 to design a distributed scheduler that scales to 1M+ sxchedules a day. It was perfect, and did better than two weeks of thought around the best way to build this.
- csto12 2y agoYou just asked it to design or implement? If o3 can design it, that means it’s using open source schedulers as reference. Did you think about opening up a few open source projects to see how they were doing things in those two weeks you were designing?
- mprast 2y agoyeah unless you have very specific requirements I think the baseline here is not building/designing it yourself but setting up an off-the-shelf commercial or OSS solution, which I doubt would take two weeks...
- torginus 2y agoDunno, in work we wanted to implement a task runner that we could use to periodically queue tasks through a web UI - it would then spin up resources on AWS and track the progress and archive the results. We looked at the existing solutions, and concluded that customizing them to meet all our requirements would be a giant effort. Meanwhile I fed the requirement doc into Claude Sonnet, and with about 3 days of prompting and debugging we had a bespoke solution that did exactly what we needed.
- codingwagie 2y agothe future is more custom software designed by ai, not less. alot of frameworks will disappear once you can build sophisticated systems yourself. people are missing this
- rsynnott 2y agoThat's a future with a _lot_ more bugs.
- codingwagie 2y agoyoure assuming humans built it. also, a ton of complexity in software engineering is really due to having to fit a business domain into a string of interfaces in different libraries and technical infrastructure
- 9rx 2y agoWhat else is going to build it? Lions? The only real complexity in software is describing it. There is no evidence that the tools are going to ever help with that. Maybe some kind of device attached directly to the brain that can sidestep the parts that get in the way, but that is assuming some part of the brain is more efficient than it seems through the pathways we experience it through. It could also be that the brain is just fatally flawed.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- cmsj 2y agoThat's a future paid for by the effort of creating current frameworks, and it's a stagnant future where every "sophisticated system" is just re-hashing the last human frameworks ever created.
- namaria 2y agoBingo. LLMs are consuming data. They cannot generate new information, they can only give back what already exists or mangle it. It is inevitable that they will degrade the total sum of information.
- codingwagie 2y agowhy would I do that kind of research if it can identify the problem I am trying to solve, and spit out the exact solution. also, it was a rough implementation adapted to my exact tech stack
- kazinator 2y agoSo you could stick your own copyright notice on the result, for one thing.
- ben_w 2y agoWhat's the point holding copyright on a new technical solution, to a problem that can be solved by anyone asking an existing AI, trained on last year's internet, independently of your new copyright?
- kazinator 2y agoAll sorts of stuff containing no original ideas is copyrighted. It legally belongs to someone and they can license it to others, etc. E.g. pop songs with no original chord progressions or melodies, and hackneyed lyrics are still copyrighted. Plagiarized and uncopyrightable code is radioactive; it can't be pulled into FOSS or commercial codebases alike.
- alabastervlog 2y agoSomeone raised the point in another recent HN LLM thread that the primary productivity benefit of LLMs in programing is the copyright laundering. The argument went that the main reason the now-ancient push for code reuse failed to deliver anything close to its hypothetical maximum benefit was because copyright got in the way. Result: tons and tons of wheel-reinvention, like, to the point that most of what programmers do day to day is reinvent wheels. LLMs essentially provide fine-grained contextual search of existing code, while also stripping copyright from whatever they find. Ta-da! Problem solved.
- cmsj 2y agoThere is one very specific risk worth mentioning: AI code is a potentially existential crisis for Open Source. An ecosystem that depends on copyright can't exist if its codebase is overrun by un-copyrightable code.
- davidsainez 2y agoWhile impressive, I'm not convinced that improved performance on tasks of this nature are indicative of progress toward AGI. Building a scheduler is a well studied problem space. Something like the ARC benchmark is much more indicative of progress toward true AGI, but probably still insufficient.
- codingwagie 2y agothe other models failed at this miserably. There were also specific technical requirements I gave it related to my tech stack
- fragmede 2y agoThe point is that AGI is the wrong bar to be aiming for. LLMs are sufficiently useful at their current state that even if it does take us 30 years to get to AGI, even just incremental improvements from now until then, they'll still be useful enough to provide value to users/customers for some companies to win big. VC funding will run out and some companies won't make it, but some of them will, to the delight of their investors. AGI when? is an interesting question, but might just be academic. we have self driving cars, weight loss drugs that work, reusable rockets, and useful computer AI. We're living in the future, man, and robot maids are just around the corner.
- MisterSandman 2y agoDesigning a distributed scheduler is a solved problem, of course an LLM was able to spit out a solution.
- codingwagie 2y agoas noted elsewhere, all other frontier models failed miserably at this
- daveguy 2y agoThat doesn't mean the one what manages to spit it out of its latent space is close to AGI. I wonder how consistently that specific model could. If you tried 10 LLMs maybe all 10 of them could have spit out the answer 1 out of 10 times. Correct problem retrieval by one LLM and failure by the others isn't a great argument for near-AGI. But LLMs will be useful in limited domains for a long time.
- alabastervlog 2y agoIt is unsurprising that some lossily-compressed-database search programs might be worse for some tasks than other lossily-compressed-database search programs.
- littlestymaar 2y ago“It does something well” ≠ “it will become AGI”. Your anodectical example isn't more convincing than “This machine cracked Enigma's messages in less time than an army of cryptanalysts over a month, surely we're gonna reach AGI by the end of the decade” would have.
- timeon 2y agoI'm not sure what is your point in context of AGI topic.
- codingwagie 2y agoim a tenured engineer, spent a long time at faang. was casually beat this morning by a far superior design from an llm.
- darod 2y agois this because the LLM actually reasoned on a better design or because it found a better design in its "database" scoured from another tenured engineer.
- anthonypasq 2y agowho cares?
- awkwardpotato 2y agoIgnoring the copyright issues, credit issues, and any ethical concerns... this approach doesn't work for anything not in the "database", it's not AGI and the tangential experience is barely relevant to the article.
- ben_w 2y agoDoes it matter if the thing a submarine does counts as "swimming"? We get paid to solve problems, sometimes the solution is to know an existing pattern or open source implementation and use it. Aguably it usually is: we seldom have to invent new architectures, DSLs, protocols, or OSes from scratch, but even those are patterns one level up. Whatever the AI is inside, doesn't matter: this was it solving a problem.
- AJ007 2y agoI find now I quickly bucket people in to "have not/have barely used the latest AI models" or "trolls" when they express a belief current LLMs aren't intelligent.
- tumsfestival 2y agoCall me back when ChatGPT isn't hallucinating half the outputs it gives me.
- machomaster 2y agoWrite me when humans will achieve hallucination levels smaller than ChatGPT.
- burnte 2y agoYou can put me in that bucket then. It's not true, I've been working with AI almost daily for 18 months, and I KNOW it's no where close to being intelligent, but it doesn't look like your buckets are based on truth but appeal. I disagree with your assessment so you think I don't know what I'm talking about. I hope you can understand that other people who know just as much as you (or even more) can disagree without being wrong or uninformed. LLMs are amazing, but they're nowhere close to intelligent.
- dundarious 2y agoWow, 12 per second on average.
- mountainriver 2y agoI’ve had similar things over the last couple days with o3. It was one-shotting whole features into my Rust codebase. Very impressive. I remember before ChatGPT, smart people would come on podcasts and say we were 100 or 300 years away from AGI. Then we saw GPT shock them. The reality is these people have no idea, it’s just catchy to talk this way. With the amount of money going into the problem and the linear increases we see over time, it’s much more likely we see AGI sooner than later.
- cruzcampo 2y agoAGI is never gonna happen - it's the tech equivalent of the second coming of Christ, a capitalist version of the religious savior trope.
- lukan 2y agoI guess I am agnostic then.
- alabastervlog 2y agoHey now, on a long enough time line one of these strains of millenarian thinking may eventually get something right.
- andrewstuart 2y agoLLMs are basically a library that can talk. That’s not artificial intelligence.
- 52-6F-62 2y agoGrammar engines. Or value matrix engines. Everytime I try to work with them I lose more time than I gain. Net loss every time. Immensely frustrating. If i focus it on a small subtask I can gain some time (rough draft of a test). Anything more advanced and its a monumental waste of time. They are not even good librarians. They fail miserably at cross referencing and contextualizing without constant leading.
- andrewstuart 2y agoI feel the opposite. LLMs are unbelievably useful for me - never have I had a tool more powerful to assist my brain work. I useLLMs for work and play constantly every day. It pretends to sound like a person and can mimic speech and write and is all around perhaps the greatest wonder created by humanity. It’s still not artificial intelligence though, it’s a talking library.
- 52-6F-62 2y agoFair. For engineering work they have been a terrible drain on me save for the most minor autocomplete. Its recommendations are often deeply flawed or almost totally hallucinated no matter the model. Maybe I am a better software engineer than a “prompt engineer”. Ive tried to use them as a research assistant in a history project and they have been also quite bad in that respect because of the immense naivety in its approaches. I couldn’t call them a librarian because librarians are studied and trained in cross referencing material. They have helped me in some searches but not better than a search engine at a monumentally higher investment cost to the industry. Then again, I am also speaking as someone who doesn’t like to offload all of my communications to those things. Use it or lose it, eh
- andrewstuart 2y ago
- EliRivers 2y agoWould we even recognise it if it arrived? We'd recognise human level intelligence, probably, but that's specialised. What would general intelligence even look like.
- shmatt 2y agoWe sort of are able to recognize Nobel-worthy breakthroughs One of the many definitions I have for AGI is being able to create the proofs for the 2030, 2050, 2100, etc Nobel Prizes, today A sillier one I like is that AGI would output a correct proof that P ≠ NP on day 1
- tough 2y agoIsn't AGI just "general" intelligence as in -like a regular human- turing test kinda deal? aren't you thinking about ASI/ Superintelligence way capable of outdoing humans?
- kadushka 2y agoYes, a general consensus is AGI should be able to perform any task an average human is able to perform. Definitely nothing of Nobel prize level.
- moralestapia 2y ago"Literally who" and "literally who" put out statements while others out there ship out products. Many such cases.
- dicroce 2y agoDoesn't even matter. The capabilities of the AI that's out NOW will take a decade or more to digest.
- awsanswers 2y agototally agree
- EA-3167 2y agoI feel like it's already been pretty well digested and excreted for the most part, now we're into the re-ingestion phase until the bubble bursts.
- tough 2y agomaybe silicon valley and the world move at basically different rates idk AI is just a speck outside of the HN and SV info-bubbles still early to mass adoption like the smartphone or the internet, mostly nerds playing w it
- kadushka 2y agoChatGPT has 400M weekly users. https://backlinko.com/chatgpt-stats https://backlinko.com/chatgpt-stats
- tough 2y agohave you wondered how many of these are bots leveraging free chatgpt with proxied vpn IPs? I'm a ChatGPT paying user but I know no one who's not a developer on my personal circles who also is one. maybe im an exeception edit: I guess 400M global users being the US 300M citizens isn't out of scope for such a highly used product amongst a 7B population But social media like instagram or fb feels like had network effects going for them making their growth faster and thus maybe why openai is exploring that idea idk
- kadushka 2y ago
- _Algernon_ 2y agoThe new fusion power
- 77pt77 2y agoThat's 20 years away. It was also 20 years away 30 years ago.
- fusionadvocate 2y agoCan someone throw some light on this Dwarkesh character? He landed a Zucc podcast pretty early on... how connected is he? Is he an industry plant?
- gallerdude 2y agoHe's awesome. I listened to Lex Friedman for a long time, and there was a lot of critiques of him (Lex) as an interviewer, but since the guests were amazing, I never really cared. But after listening to Dwarkesh, my eyes are opened (or maybe my soul). It doesn't matter I've heard of not-many of his guests, because he knows exactly the right questions to ask. He seems to have genuine curiosity for what the guest is saying, and will push back if something doesn't make sense to him. Very much recommend.
- lexarflash8g 2y agohttps://archive.ph/IWjYP https://archive.ph/IWjYP He was covered on the Economist recently -- I haven't heard of him til now so imagine its not just AI-slop content.
- consumer451 2y agoHe is one of the most prepared podcasters I’ve ever come across. He puts all other mainstream podcasts to deep shame. He spends weeks reading everything by his guests prior to the interview, asks excellent questions, pushes back, etc. He certainly has blind spots and biases just like anyone else. For example, he is very AI scale-pilled. However, he will have people like today’s guests on which contradict his biases. This is something a host like Lex could never do apparently. Dwarkesh is up there with Sean Carrol’s podcast as the most interesting and most intellectually honest in my view.
- dcchambers 2y agoAnd in 30 years it will be another 30 years away. LLMs are so incredibly useful and powerful but they will NEVER be AGI. I actually wonder if the success of (and subsequent obsession with) LLMs is putting true AGI further out of reach. All that these AI companies see are the $$$. When the biggest "AI Research Labs" like OpenAI shifted to product-izing their LLM offerings I think the writing was on the wall that they don't actually care about finding AGI.
- thomasahle 2y agoPeople will keep improving LLMs, and by the time they are AGI (less than 30 years), you will say, "Well, these are no longer LLMs."
- croes 2y agoThey‘ll get cheaper and less hardware demanding but the quality improvements get smaller and smaller, sometimes hardly noticeable outside benchmarks
- Spartan-S63 2y agoWhat was the point of this comment? It's confrontational and doesn't add anything to the conversation. If you disagree, you could have just said that, or not commented at all.
- logicchains 2y agoThe people who go around saying "LLMs aren't intelligent" while refusing to define exactly what they mean by intelligence (and hence not making a meaningful/testable claim) add nothing to the conversation.
- AnimalMuppet 2y agoOK, but the people who go around saying "LLMs are intelligent" are in the same boat...
- 2y ago
- throw7 2y agoAGI is here today... go have a kid.
- fusionadvocate 2y agoNatural intelligence is too expensive. Takes too long for it to grow. If things go wrong then we have to jail it. With computers we just change the software.
- xyzal 2y agoYou work for DOGE, don't you?
- GeorgeTirebiter 2y agoThat would be "GI". The "A" part implies, specifically, NOT having a kid, eh?
- card_zero 2y agoNot artificial, but yes, it's unclear what advantage an artificial person has over a natural one, or how it's supposed to gain special insights into fusion reactor design and etc. even if it can think very fast.
- ge96 2y agoGood thing the Wolfenstein tech isn't a thing yet hopefully
- ksec 2y agoIs AGI even important? I believe the next 10 to 15 years will be Assisted Intelligence. There are things that current LLM are so poor I dont believe a 100x increase in pref / watt is going to make much difference. But it is going to be good enough there wont be an AI Winter. Since current AI has already reached escape velocity and actually increase productivity in many areas. The most intriguing part is if Humanoid factory worker programming will be made 1000 to 10,000x more cost effective with LLM. Effectively ending all human production. I know this is a sensitive topic but I dont think we are far off. And I often wonder if this is what the current administration has in sight. ( Likely Not )
- csours 2y agoAI winter is relative, and it's more about outlook and point of view than actual state of the field.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- belter 2y ago> Is AGI even important? It's an important question for VCs not for Technologists ... :-)
- Philpax 2y agoA technology that can create new technology is quite important for technologists to keep abreast of, I'd say :p
- Nevermark 2y agoYou get to say “Checkmate” now! Another end game is: “A technology that doesn’t need us to maintain itself, and can improve its own design in manufacturing cycles instead of species cycles, might have important implications for every biological entity on Earth.”
- csours 2y ago1. LLM interactions can feel real. Projections and psychological mirroring is very real. 2. I believe that AI researchers will require some level of embodiment to demonstrate: a. ability to understand the physical world. b. make changes to the physical world. c. predict the outcome to changes in the physical world. d. learn from the success or failure of those predictions and update their internal model of the external world. --- I cannot quickly find proposed tests in this discussion.
- lo_zamoyski 2y agoThirty years. Just enough time to call it quits and head to Costa Rica.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- xnx 2y agoI'll take the "under" on 30 years. Demis Hassabis (who has more credibility than whoever these 3 people are combined) says 5-10 years: https://time.com/7277608/demis-hassabis-interview-time100-2025/ https://time.com/7277608/demis-hassabis-interview-time100-20...
- karmakaze 2y agoThat's in line with Ray Kurzweil sticking to his long-held predictions: 2029 for AGI and 2045 for the singularity.
- an0malous 2y agoI’m sticking with Kurzweil’s predictions as well, his basic premise of extrapolating from compute scaling has been surprisingly robust. ~2030 is also roughly the Metaculus community consensus: https://www.metaculus.com/questions/5121/date-of-artificial-general-intelligence/ https://www.metaculus.com/questions/5121/date-of-artificial-...
- ac29 2y agoA lot of Kurzweil's predictions are nowhere close to coming correct though. For example, he thought by 2019 we'd have millions of nanorobots in our blood, fighting disease and improving cognition. As near as I can tell we are not tangibly closer to that than we were when he wrote about it 25 years ago. By 2030, he expected humans to be immortal.
- candiddevmike 2y agoWe will never have the required compute by then.
- arkj 2y ago”‘AGI is x years away’ is a proposition that is both true and false at the same time. Like all such propositions, it is therefore meaningless.”
- antisthenes 2y agoYou cannot have AGI without a physical manifestation that can generate its own training data based on inputs from the external outside world with e.g. sensors and constantly refine its model. Pure language or pure image-models are just one aspect of intelligence - just very refined pattern recognition. You will also probably need some aspect of self-awareness in order or the system to set auxiliary goals and directives related to self-maintenance. But you don't need AGI in order to have something useful (which I think a lot of readers are confused about). No one is making the argument that you need AGI to bring tons of value.
- Zambyte 2y agoRelated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect
- kgwxd 2y agoAgain?
- lucisferre 2y agoHuh, so it should be ready around the same time as practical fusion reactors then. I'll warm up the car.
- shortrounddev2 2y agoHopefully more!
- yibg 2y agoMight as well be 10 - 1000 years. Reality is no one knows how long it'll take to get to AGI, because: 1) No one knows what exactly makes humans "intelligent" and therefore 2) No one knows what it would take to achieve AGI Go back through history and AI / AGI has been a couple of decades away for several decades now.
- yieldcrv 2y agoExactly, what does the general in Artificial General Intelligence mean to these people?
- timewizard 2y agoThat we don't have a single unified explanation doesn't mean that we don't have very good hints, or that we don't have very good understandings of specific components. Aside from that the measure really, to me, has to be power efficiency. If you're boiling oceans to make all this work then you've not achieved anything worth having. From my calculations the human brain runs on about 400 calories a day. That's an absurdly small amount of energy. This hints at the direction these technologies must move in to be truly competitive with humans.
- adgjlsfhk1 2y agonote that those are kilocalories, and that is ignoring the calories needed for the circulatory and immune systems which are somewhat necessary for proper function. Using 2000 cal per day/10 hours of thinking gives a consumption of ~200W
- mschuster91 2y ago> Using 2000 cal per day/10 hours of thinking gives a consumption of ~200W So, about a tenth or less of a single server packed to the top with GPUs.
- stevenwoo 2y agoThat is true but there’s 3.7 billion years of evolutionary “design” to make self replicating, self fueling animals to use that brain. There’s no AI within foreseeable future capable of that. One might look at brains as a side effect of evolution of the self replicating, self fueling bits.
- ValveFan6969 2y agoI do not like those who try to play God. The future of humanity will not be determined by some tech giant in their ivory tower, no matter how high it may be. This is a battle that goes deeper than ones and zeros. It's a battle for the soul of our society. It's a battle we must win, or face the consequences of a future we cannot even imagine... and that, I fear, is truly terrifying.
- bigyabai 2y ago> The future of humanity will not be determined by some tech giant in their ivory tower Really? Because it kinda seems like it already has been. Jony Ive designed the most iconic smartphone in the world from a position beyond reproach even when he messed up (eg. Bendgate). Google decides what your future is algorithmically, basically eschewing determinism to sell an ad or recommend a viral video. Instagram, Facebook and TikTok all have disproportionate influence over how ordinary people live their lives. From where I'm standing, the future of humanity has already been cast by tech giants. The notion of AI taking control is almost a relief considering how illogical and obstinate human leadership can be.
- sebastiennight 2y agoThe thing is, AGI is not needed to enable incredible business/societal value, and there is good reason to believe that actual AGI would damage both our society, our economy, and if many experts in the field are to be believed, humanity's survival as well. So I feel happy that models keep improving, and not worried at all that they're reaching an asymptote.
- lolinder 2y agoReally the only people for whom this is bad news is OpenAI and their investors. If there is no AGI race to win then OpenAI is just a wildly overvalued vendor of a hot commodity in a crowded market, not the best current shot at building a money printing machine.
- stared 2y agoMy pet peeve: talking about AGI without defining it. There’s no consistent, universally accepted definition. Without that, the discussion may be intellectually entertaining—but ultimately moot. And we run into the motte-and-bailey fallacy: at one moment, AGI refers to something known to be mathematically impossible (e.g., due to the No Free Lunch theorem); the next, it’s something we already have with GPT-4 (which, while clearly not superintelligent, is general enough to approach novel problems beyond simple image classification). There are two reasonable approaches in such cases. One is to clearly define what we mean by the term. The second (IMHO, much more fruitful) is to taboo your words (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/WBdvyyHLdxZSAMmoz/taboo-your-words https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/WBdvyyHLdxZSAMmoz/taboo-your...)—that is, avoid vague terms like AGI (or even AI!) and instead use something more concrete. For example: “When will it outperform 90% of software engineers at writing code?” or “When will all AI development be in hands on AI?”.
- pixl97 2y ago>There’s no consistent, universally accepted definition. That's because of the I part. An actual complete description accepted by different practices in the scientific community. "Concepts of "intelligence" are attempts to clarify and organize this complex set of phenomena. Although considerable clarity has been achieved in some areas, no such conceptualization has yet answered all the important questions, and none commands universal assent. Indeed, when two dozen prominent theorists were recently asked to define intelligence, they gave two dozen, somewhat different, definitions"
- biophysboy 2y agoI like chollet's definition: something that can quickly learn any skill without any innate prior knowledge or training.
- stared 2y agoI like Chollet's line of thinking. Yet, if you take "any" literally, the answer is simple - there will never be one. Not even for practical reasons, but closer to why there isn't "a set of all sets". Picking a sensible benchmark is the hard part.
- dmwilcox 2y agoI've been saying this for a decade already but I guess it is worth saying here. I'm not afraid AI or a hammer is going to become intelligent (or jump up and hit me in the head either). It is science fiction to think that a system like a computer can behave at all like a brain. Computers are incredibly rigid systems with only the limited variance we permit. "Software" is flexible in comparison to creating dedicated circuits for our computations but is nothing by comparison to our minds. Ask yourself, why is it so hard to get a cryptographically secure random number? Because computers are pure unadulterated determinism -- put the same random seed value in your code and get the same "random numbers" every time in the same order. Computers need to be like this to be good tools. Assuming that AGI is possible in the kinds of computers we know how to build means that we think a mind can be reduced to a probabilistic or deterministic system. And from my brief experience on this planet I don't believe that premise. Your experience may differ and it might be fun to talk about. In Aristotle's ethics he talks a lot about ergon (purpose) -- hammers are different than people, computers are different than people, they have an obvious purpose (because they are tools made with an end in mind). Minds strive -- we have desires, wants and needs -- even if it is simply to survive or better yet thrive (eudaimonia). An attempt to create a mind is another thing entirely and not something we know how to start. Rolling dice hasn't gotten anywhere. So I'd wager AGI somewhere in the realm of 30 years to never.
- CooCooCaCha 2y agoThis is why I think philosophy has become another form of semi-religious kookery. You haven't provided any actual proof or logical reason for why a computer couldn't be intelligent. If randomness is required then sample randomness from the real world. It's clear that your argument is based on feels and you're using philosophy to make it sound more legitimate.
- biophysboy 2y agoBrains are low-frequency, energy-efficient, organic, self-reproducing, asynchronous, self-repairing, and extremely highly connected (thousands of synapses). If AGI is defined as "approximate humans", I think its gonna be a while. That said, I don't think computers need to be human to have an emergent intelligence. It can be different in kind if not in degree.
- lexarflash8g 2y agoApparently Dwarkesh's podcast is a big hit in SV -- it was covered by the Economist just recently. I thought the "All in" podcast was the voice of tech but their content has been going politcal with MAGA lately and their episodes are basically shouting matches with their guests. And for folks who want to read rather than listen to a podcast, why not create an article (they are using Gemini) rather than just posting the whole transcript? Who is going to read a 60 min long transcript?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- swframe2 2y agoThe Anthropic's research on how LLMs reason shows that LLMs are quite flawed. I wonder if we can use an LLM to deeply analyze and fix the flaws.
- colesantiago 2y agoThis "AGI" definition is extremely loose depending on who you talk to. Ask "what does AGI mean to you" and sometimes the answer is: 1. Millions of layoffs across industries due to AI with some form of questionable UBI (not sure if this works) 2. 100BN in profits. (Microsoft / OpenAI definition) 3. Abundance in slopware. (VC's definition) 4. Raise more money to reach AGI / ASI. 5. Any job that a human can do which is economically significant. 6. Safe AI (Researchers definition). 7. All the above that AI could possibly do better. I am sure there must be a industry aligned and concrete definition that everyone can agree on rather the goal post moving definitions.
- alecco 2y agoIs it me or the signal/noise is needle in a haystack for all these cheerleader tech podcasts? In general, I really miss the podcast scene from 10 years ago, less polished but more human and with reasonable content. Not this speculative blabber that seems to be looking to generate clickbait clips. I don't know what happened a few years ago, but even solid podcasts are practically garbage now. I used to listen to podcasts daily for at least an hour. Now I'm stuck with uploading blogs and pdfs to Eleven Reader. I tried the Google thing to make a podcast but it's very repetitive and dumb.
- ChicagoDave 2y agoYou can’t put a date on AGI until the required technology is invented and that hasn’t happened yet.
- consumer451 2y agoOne thing in the podcast I found really interesting from a personal pov was: > I remember talking to a very senior person who’s now at Anthropic, in 2017. And then he told various people that they shouldn’t do a PhD because by the time they completed it everyone will be automated. Don’t tell young people things like this. Predicting the future is hard, and it is the height of hubris to think otherwise. I remember as a teen, I had thought that I was a supposed to be a pilot for all my life. I was ready to enroll in a school with a two year program. However, I was also into computers. One person who I looked up to in that world said to me “don’t be a pilot, it will all be automated soon and you will just be buss drivers, at best.” This entirely took the wind out of my piloting sails. This was in the early 90’s, and 30 years later, it is still wrong.
- anon6362 2y agoFusion power will arrive first. And, it will be needed to power the Cambrian explosion of datacenters just for weak AI. I could be wrong but AGI maybe a cold fusion or flying cars boondoggle: chasing a dream that no one needs, costs too much, or is best left unrealized.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- xbmcuser 2y agoMost people talking about Ai and economic growth have vested interests in talking about how it will increase economic growth but don't talk about that under current economic system that the world has would mean most if not all of the growth will go to > 0.0001% of the population.
- ceoofballin 2y agoTURKS MENTIONED RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!1!1!! TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE
- sheepscreek 2y agoExplosive growth? Interesting. But at some point, human civilization hits a saturation point. There’s only so much people can eat, wear, drive, stream, or hoard. Extending that logic, there’s a natural ceiling to demand - one that even AGI can’t code its way out of. Sure, you might double the world economy for a decade, but then what? We’ll run out of people to sell things to. And that’s when things get weird. To sustain growth, we’d have to start manufacturing demand itself - perhaps by turning autonomous robots into wage-earning members of society. They’d buy goods, subscribe to services, maybe even pay taxes. In effect, they become synthetic consumers fueling a post-human economy. I call this post-human consumerism. It’s when the synthesis of demand would hit the next gear - if we keep moving in this direction.
- tim333 2y ago30 years away seems rather unlikely to me, if you define AGI as being able to do the stuff humans do. I mean like Dawkesh says: >We’ve gone from Chat GPT two years ago to now we have models that can literally do reasoning, are better coders than me, and I studied software engineering in college. Also we've recently reached the point where relatively reasonable hardware can do as much compute as the human brain so we just need some algorithms.