5 ms·

This assumes we won't achieve AGI. If we do, all bets are off. Perhaps neuromorphic hardware will get is there.

by ImHereToVote 1y ago

sph 1y ago
Let's achieve AGI first before making predictions.
- dsign 1y ago
  When AGI is achieved, it will be able to make the predictions. And everything else. And off we the humans go to the reserve.
  - littlestymaar 1y ago
    Only if it can do it in an affordable fashion. If you need a supercomputer to run your AGI then it's probably not worth it for any task that a human can do, because humans happen to be much cheaper than supercomputers. Also, it's not clear if AGI doesn't mean it's necessarily better than existing AIs: a 3 years old child has general intelligence indeed, but it's far less helpful than even a sub-billion parameters LLM for any task.
    - codr7 1y ago
      A child learns from experience, something still missing in LLMs.
      - littlestymaar 1y ago
        Yep, but it won't deserve to be called AGI before it can learn too.
- ImHereToVote 1y ago
  That doesn't seem sensible. We already have general intelligences. Let's infer possible outcomes before rushing head first.
  - horhay 1y ago
    People can't even begin to actually quantify how an "AGI" fits the world. Or define it consistently. How do you think you can hypothesize preparing for it? This is why people keep telling you that talking about it is ultimately meaningless. Leave this stuff on r/singularity, because people are talking about foreseeable productivity.
    - ImHereToVote 1y ago
      A general problem to action mapper. We have those in biological form with varying degrees of generality. We can use those to infer what synthetic ones will behave like.
      - horhay 1y ago
        You keep saying reiterating this like the people in charge of researching for this agree with this bar that you set. These qualified people can't even agree amongst themselves. Also. That second point is like the most unhelpful point I've ever seen saying that "we just need to look at us, we're the real GI, we're proof AGI can exist". What are you even talking about? You don't think people have taken that philosophy before? We're not even close to figuring out all the nuts and bolts that go into /natural/ general intelligence. What makes you think it's easier here?
        ImHereToVote 1y ago
        It doesn't get easier. Nobody predicted LLMs. Intelligence is much easier to grow than it is to understand. This is obvious.
        horhay 1y ago
        You mean /knowledge/ is easier to collect lol. Not even grow. And if it's easy to grow with what we know then space travel to outside our solar system might already be a thing today. "Growing intelligence" requires scientific study that gets harder the more you understand a problem. "Easier" is such a dismissive thing to describe the science that goes into it. Nobody predicted LLM's? Despite the fact that it shares mechanisms from other older branches of machine learning. Right. I'd recommend you stop right here lol. You are no longer speaking from the point of view of the industry or research, just looking at what laymen think.
risyachka 1y ago
Id we do it will be able to grow food, build houses etc using humanoids or other robots. We won’t need jobs so we would be just fine.
- layer8 1y ago
  How would you pay for those robots without a job? Or do you think whoever makes them will give them to you for free? Maybe the AI overlord will, but I doubt it.
  - risyachka 1y ago
    In the world of abundance you don’t have to pay for this. If theres nothing for people to do a new economy will arise where government will supply you with whatever you need at least at basic level. Or the wars will start and everything will burn. Obviously if there are no jobs no one will sit on their ass starving. People will get food , clothes, housing etc either via distribution or via force.
    - layer8 1y ago
      Who would be the government if nobody has to work? Those who want power will be the ones with the strongest incentive to be the government and to control the supply of "abundance" (plus military forces). And they will be motivated to deprive others of "free everything" in order to have more control over them. Given human nature, I'm highly skeptical that such an "abundance" utopia is possible.
Mbwagava 1y ago
Is there any evidence that AGI is a meaningful concept? I don't want to call it "obviously" a fantasy, but it's difficult to paint the path towards AGI without also employing "fantasize".
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  I mean, humans exist. We know a blob of fat is capable of thought.
  - Mbwagava 1y ago
    Sure, but what does that have to do with AGI? I don't think anyone is proposing simulating an entire brain (yet, anyway). Like you could have "AGI" if you simply virtualized the universe. I don't think we're any closer to that than we are to AGI; hell, something that looks like a human mouth output is a lot easier and cheaper to model than virtualize.
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      Unless you believe humans have something mystical like a soul, our brains are evidence that “general intelligence” is achievable in a relatively small, energy efficient form.
      - Mbwagava 1y ago
        Ok, but very few people contest that consciousness is computable. It's basically just Penrose (and other folks without the domain knowledge to engage). This doesn't imply that at any point during all human existence will computing consciousness be economically feasible or worthwhile. Actual AGI presumably implies a not-brain involved. And this isn't even broaching the subject of "superintelligence", which I would describe as "superunbelievable".
        Eisenstein 1y ago
        Until you can create a definition of consciousness which can be tested externally from the tested object, then the whole subject is moot.
bwfan123 1y ago
There is no point in these ill-formed hypothetical untestable assumptions. - Assuming god comes to earth tomorrow, earth will be heaven - Assuming an asteroid strikes earth in the future we need settlements on mars etc, pointless discussion, gossip, and bs required for human bonding like on this forum or in a bierhauz
- ImHereToVote 1y ago
  We are literally talking about problem solving computers. They are goal to action mappers. It's reasonable to talk about goal to action mappers that are more general than the ones we have now. They might even become more general than the general intelligences we have now on message boards.

This assumes we won't achieve AGI. If we do, all bets are off. Perhaps neuromorphic hardware will get is there.

sph 1y ago

Let's achieve AGI first before making predictions.

dsign 1y ago
When AGI is achieved, it will be able to make the predictions. And everything else. And off we the humans go to the reserve.
- littlestymaar 1y ago
  Only if it can do it in an affordable fashion. If you need a supercomputer to run your AGI then it's probably not worth it for any task that a human can do, because humans happen to be much cheaper than supercomputers. Also, it's not clear if AGI doesn't mean it's necessarily better than existing AIs: a 3 years old child has general intelligence indeed, but it's far less helpful than even a sub-billion parameters LLM for any task.
  - codr7 1y ago
    A child learns from experience, something still missing in LLMs.
    - littlestymaar 1y ago
      Yep, but it won't deserve to be called AGI before it can learn too.
ImHereToVote 1y ago
That doesn't seem sensible. We already have general intelligences. Let's infer possible outcomes before rushing head first.
- horhay 1y ago
  People can't even begin to actually quantify how an "AGI" fits the world. Or define it consistently. How do you think you can hypothesize preparing for it? This is why people keep telling you that talking about it is ultimately meaningless. Leave this stuff on r/singularity, because people are talking about foreseeable productivity.
  - ImHereToVote 1y ago
    A general problem to action mapper. We have those in biological form with varying degrees of generality. We can use those to infer what synthetic ones will behave like.
    - horhay 1y ago
      You keep saying reiterating this like the people in charge of researching for this agree with this bar that you set. These qualified people can't even agree amongst themselves. Also. That second point is like the most unhelpful point I've ever seen saying that "we just need to look at us, we're the real GI, we're proof AGI can exist". What are you even talking about? You don't think people have taken that philosophy before? We're not even close to figuring out all the nuts and bolts that go into /natural/ general intelligence. What makes you think it's easier here?
      - ImHereToVote 1y ago
        It doesn't get easier. Nobody predicted LLMs. Intelligence is much easier to grow than it is to understand. This is obvious.
        horhay 1y ago
        You mean /knowledge/ is easier to collect lol. Not even grow. And if it's easy to grow with what we know then space travel to outside our solar system might already be a thing today. "Growing intelligence" requires scientific study that gets harder the more you understand a problem. "Easier" is such a dismissive thing to describe the science that goes into it. Nobody predicted LLM's? Despite the fact that it shares mechanisms from other older branches of machine learning. Right. I'd recommend you stop right here lol. You are no longer speaking from the point of view of the industry or research, just looking at what laymen think.

risyachka 1y ago

Id we do it will be able to grow food, build houses etc using humanoids or other robots. We won’t need jobs so we would be just fine.

layer8 1y ago
How would you pay for those robots without a job? Or do you think whoever makes them will give them to you for free? Maybe the AI overlord will, but I doubt it.
- risyachka 1y ago
  In the world of abundance you don’t have to pay for this. If theres nothing for people to do a new economy will arise where government will supply you with whatever you need at least at basic level. Or the wars will start and everything will burn. Obviously if there are no jobs no one will sit on their ass starving. People will get food , clothes, housing etc either via distribution or via force.
  - layer8 1y ago
    Who would be the government if nobody has to work? Those who want power will be the ones with the strongest incentive to be the government and to control the supply of "abundance" (plus military forces). And they will be motivated to deprive others of "free everything" in order to have more control over them. Given human nature, I'm highly skeptical that such an "abundance" utopia is possible.

Mbwagava 1y ago

Is there any evidence that AGI is a meaningful concept? I don't want to call it "obviously" a fantasy, but it's difficult to paint the path towards AGI without also employing "fantasize".

ceejayoz 1y ago
I mean, humans exist. We know a blob of fat is capable of thought.
- Mbwagava 1y ago
  Sure, but what does that have to do with AGI? I don't think anyone is proposing simulating an entire brain (yet, anyway). Like you could have "AGI" if you simply virtualized the universe. I don't think we're any closer to that than we are to AGI; hell, something that looks like a human mouth output is a lot easier and cheaper to model than virtualize.
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    Unless you believe humans have something mystical like a soul, our brains are evidence that “general intelligence” is achievable in a relatively small, energy efficient form.
    - Mbwagava 1y ago
      Ok, but very few people contest that consciousness is computable. It's basically just Penrose (and other folks without the domain knowledge to engage). This doesn't imply that at any point during all human existence will computing consciousness be economically feasible or worthwhile. Actual AGI presumably implies a not-brain involved. And this isn't even broaching the subject of "superintelligence", which I would describe as "superunbelievable".
      - Eisenstein 1y ago
        Until you can create a definition of consciousness which can be tested externally from the tested object, then the whole subject is moot.

bwfan123 1y ago

There is no point in these ill-formed hypothetical untestable assumptions. - Assuming god comes to earth tomorrow, earth will be heaven - Assuming an asteroid strikes earth in the future we need settlements on mars etc, pointless discussion, gossip, and bs required for human bonding like on this forum or in a bierhauz

ImHereToVote 1y ago
We are literally talking about problem solving computers. They are goal to action mappers. It's reasonable to talk about goal to action mappers that are more general than the ones we have now. They might even become more general than the general intelligences we have now on message boards.