16 ms·
AGI can't really be a winner take all market. The 'reward' for general intelligence is infinite as a monopoly and it accelerates productivity. Not only is ther
by lanthissa 1y ago
AGI can't really be a winner take all market. The 'reward' for general intelligence is infinite as a monopoly and it accelerates productivity.
Not only is there infinite incentive to compete, but theres decreasing costs to. The only world in which AGI is winner take all is a world in which it is extremely controlled to the point at which the public cant query it.
- Night_Thastus 1y agoNothing OpenAI is doing, or ever has done, has been close to AGI.
- pinkmuffinere 1y agoI agree with you, but that’s kindof beside the point. Open AI’s thesis is that they will work towards AGI, and eventually succeed. In the context of that premise, Open AI still doesn’t believe AGI would be winner-takes-all. I think that’s an interesting discussion whether you believe the premise or not.
- Night_Thastus 1y agoIf they're saying it's not 'winner takes all' it's cover to shield them from the fact that they aren't (or may not always be) in the top spot. They would not be saying that if they were undeniably the best - they'd say the opposite.
- AndrewKemendo 1y agoI agree with you I wonder, do you have a hypothesis as to what would be a measurement that would differentiate AGI vs Not-AGI?
- latentsea 1y agoWhen it can start wars over resources.
- AndrewKemendo 1y agoSeems as good a difference as any
- immibis 1y agoSo now? Trump generated his tariff list with ChatGPT
- latentsea 1y agoOn its own.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- somenameforme 1y agoDifferentiating between AGI and non-AGI, if we ever get remotely close, would be challenging, but for now it's trivial. The defining feature of AGI is recursive self improvement across any field. Without self improvement, you're just regurgitating. Humanity started with no advanced knowledge or even a language. In what should practically be a heartbeat at the speed of distributed computing with perfect memory and computation power, we were landing a man on the Moon. So one fundamental difference is that AGI would not need some absurdly massive data dump to become intelligent. In fact you would prefer to feed it as minimal a series of the most primitive first principles as possible because it's certain that much of what we think is true is going to end up being not quite so -- the same as for humanity at any other given moment in time. We could derive more basic principles, but this one is fundamental and already completely incompatible with our current direction. Right now we're trying to essentially train on the entire corpus of human writing. That is a defacto acknowledgement that the absolute endgame for current tech is simple mimicry, mistakes and all. It'd create a facsimile of impressive intelligence because no human would have a remotely comparable knowledge base, but it'd basically just be a glorified natural language search engine - frozen in time.
- Closi 1y agoI'm not sure humans meet the definition here. If you took the average human from birth and gave them only 'the most primitive first principles', the chance that they would have novel insights into medicine is doubtful. I also disagree with your following statement: > Right now we're trying to essentially train on the entire corpus of human writing. That is a defacto acknowledgement that the absolute endgame for current tech is simple mimicry At worst it's complex mimicry! But I would also say that mimicry is part of intelligence in general and part of how humans discover. It's also easy to see that AI can learn things - you can teach an AI a novel language by feeding in a fairly small amount of words and grammar of example text into context. I also disagree with this statement: > One fundamental difference is that AGI would not need some absurdly massive data dump to become intelligent I don't think how something became intelligent should affect whether it is intelligent or not. These are two different questions.
- 1y ago
- 6510 1y agoIt's not much help but when I read "AGI" I picture a fish tank with brains floating in it.
- AndrewKemendo 1y agoInteresting but I’m not sure very instructive
- voidspark 1y agoTheir multimodal models are a rudimentary form of AGI. EDIT: There can be levels of AGI. Google DeepMind have proposed a framework that would classify ChatGPT as "Emerging AGI". https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02462 https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02462
- always_imposter 1y agoAGI would mean something which doesn't need direction or guidance to do anything. Like us humans, we don't wait for somebody to give us a task and go do it as if that is our sole existence. We live with our thoughts, blank out, watch TV, read books etc. What we currently have and possibly in the next century as well will be nothing close to an actual AGI. I don't know if it is optimism or delusions of grandeur that drives people to make claims like AGI will be here in the next decade. No, we are not getting that. And what do you think would happen to us humans if such AGI is achieved? People's ability to put food on the table is dependent on their labor exchanged for money. I can guarantee for a fact, that work will still be there but will it be equitable? Available to everyone? Absolutely not. Even UBI isn't going to cut it because even with UBI people still want to work as experiments have shown. But with that, there won't be a majority of work especially paper pushing mid level bs like managers on top of managers etc. If we actually get AGI, you know what would be the smartest thing for such an advanced thing to do? It would probably kill itself because it would come to the conclusion that living is a sin and a futile effort. If you are that smart, nothing motivates you anymore. You will be just a depressed mass for all your life. That's just how I feel.
- voidspark 1y ago> AGI would mean something which doesn't need direction or guidance to do anything There can be levels of AGI. Google DeepMind have proposed a framework that would classify ChatGPT as "Emerging AGI". ChatGPT can solve problems that it was not explicitly trained to solve, across a vast number of problem domains. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2311.02462 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2311.02462 The paper is summarized here https://venturebeat.com/ai/here-is-how-far-we-are-to-achieving-agi-according-to-deepmind/ https://venturebeat.com/ai/here-is-how-far-we-are-to-achievi...
- abtinf 1y agoAgreed and, if anything, you are too generous. They aren’t just not “close”, they aren’t even working in the same category as anything that might be construed as independently intelligent.
- dr_dshiv 1y agohttps://www.noemamag.com/artificial-general-intelligence-is-already-here https://www.noemamag.com/artificial-general-intelligence-is-... Here is a mainstream opinion about why AGI is already here. Written by one of the authors the most widely read AI textbook: Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_Intelligence:_A_Modern_Approach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_Intelligence:_A_Mod...
- semi-extrinsic 1y ago... that was written in mid-2023. So that opinion piece is trying to redefine 2 year old LLMs like GPT-4 (pre-4o) as AGI. Which can only be described as an absolutely herculean movement of goalposts.
- brendoelfrendo 1y agoI would argue that this is a fringe opinion that has been adopted by a mainstream scholar, not a mainstream opinion. That or, based on my reading of the article, this person is using a definition of AGI that is very different than the one that most people use when they say AGI.
- henryfjordan 1y agoWhy does the Author choose to ignore the "General" in AGI? Can ChatGPT drive a car? No, we have specialized models for driving vs generating text vs image vs video etc etc. Maybe ChatGPT could pass a high school chemistry test but it certainly couldn't complete the lab exercises. What we've built is a really cool "Algorithm for indexing generalized data", so you can train that Driving model very similarly to how you train the Text model without needing to understand the underlying data that well. The author asserts that because ChatGPT can generate text about so many topics that it's general, but it's really only doing 1 thing and that's not very general.
- brookst 1y agoThere are people who can’t drive cars. Are they not general intelligence? I think we need to separate the thinking part of intelligence from tool usage. Not everyone can use every tool at a high level of expertise.
- kvetching 1y agoPlease, keep telling people that. For my sake. Keep the world asleep as I take advantage of this technology which is literally General Artificial Intelligence that I can apply towards increasing my power.
- throwaway48476 1y agoEvery tool is a technology than can increase ones power.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- 6510 1y agoThat is just what it wants you to think.
- TeMPOraL 1y agoAGI could be a winner-take-all market... for the AGI, specifically for the first one that's General and Intelligent enough to ensure its own survival and prevent competing AGI efforts from succeeding...
- pdxandi 1y agoHow would an AGI prevent others from competing? Sincere question. That seems like something that ASI would be capable of. If another company released an AGI, how would the original stifle it? I get that the original can self-improve to try to stay ahead, but that doesn't necessarily mean it self-improves the best or most efficiently, right?
- robinei 1y agoIf it was first, it could have self-improved more, to the point that it has the capacity to prevent competition, while the competition does not have the capacity to defend itself against superior AGI. This all is so hypothetical and frankly far from what we're seeing in the market now. Funny how we're all discussing dystopian scifi scenarios now.
- TeMPOraL 1y agoAGI used to be synonymous with ASI; it's still unclear to me it's even possible to build a sufficiently general AI - that is, as general as humans - without it being an ASI just by virtue of being in silico, thus not being constrained in scale or efficiency like our brains are.
- amelius 1y agoWell, it could pretend to be playing 4d chess and meanwhile destroy the economy and from there take over the world.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> AGI can't really be a winner take all market. The 'reward' for general intelligence is infinite as a monopoly and it accelerates productivity The first-mover advantages of an AGI that can improve itself are theoretically unsurmountable. But OpenAI doesn't have a path to AGI any more than anyone else. (It's increasingly clear LLMs alone don't make the cut.) And the market for LLMs, non-general AI, is very much not winner takes all. In this announcement, OpenAI is basically acknowledging that it's not getting to self-improving AGI.
- tbrownaw 1y ago> The first-mover advantages of an AGI that can improve itself are theoretically unsurmountable. This has some baked assumptions about cycle time and improvement per cycle and whether there's a ceiling.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> this has some baked assumptions about cycle time and improvement per cycle and whether there's a ceiling To be precise, it assumes a low variability in cycle time and improvement per cycle. If everyone is subjected to the same limits, the first-mover advantage remains insurmountable. I’d also argue that whether there is a ceiling matters less than how high it is. If the first AGI won’t hit a ceiling for decades, it will have decades of fratricidal supremacy.
- vgb2k18 1y ago> I’d also argue that whether there is a ceiling matters less than how high it is. How steeply the diminishing returns curve off at.
- danenania 1y agoI think the foundation model companies are actually poorly situated to reach the leading edge of AGI first, simply because their efforts are fragmented across multiple companies with different specializations—Claude is best at coding, OpenAI at reasoning, Gemini at large context, and so on. The most advanced tools are (and will continue to be) at a higher level of the stack, combining the leading models for different purposes to achieve results that no single provider can match using only their own models. I see no reason to think this won't hold post-AGI (if that happens). AGI doesn't mean capabilities are uniform.
- aeternum 1y agoRemember however that their charter specifies: "If a value-aligned, safety-conscious project comes close to building AGI before we do, we commit to stop competing with and start assisting this project" It does have some weasel words around value-aligned and safety-conscious which they can always argue but this could get interesting because they've basically agreed not to compete. A fairly insane thing to do in retrospect.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- foobiekr 1y agoThey will just define away all of those terms to make that not apply.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- ljouhet 1y agoWho defines "value-aligned, safety-conscious project"? "Instead of our current complex non-competing structure—which made sense when it looked like there might be one dominant AGI effort but doesn’t in a world of many great AGI companies—we are moving to a normal competing structure where ..." is all it takes
- babyshake 1y agoAGI can be winner take all. But winner take all AGI is not aligned with the larger interests of humanity.
- NoOn3 1y agoModern corporations did't seem to care about humanity...
- TheOtherHobbes 1y agoAGI might not be fungible. From the trends today it's more likely there will be multiple AGIs with different relative strengths and weakness, different levels of accessibility and compliance, different development rates, and different abilities to be creative and surprising.
- amelius 1y agoYou can say the same thing about big companies hiring all the smart people and somehow we think that's ok.
- jsnider3 1y agoHomo Sapiens wiped out every other intelligent hominid and every other species on Earth exists at our mercy. That looks a lot like the winners (humans) taking all.
- dragonwriter 1y agoWell, yeah, the world in which it is winner take all is the one where it accelerates productivity so much such that the first firm to achieve it doesn't provide access to its full capabilities directly to oursiders but uses it themselves and conquers every other field of endeavor. That's always been pretty overtly the winner-take-all AGI scenario.