5 ms·

They had been saying it was 10 years away for ~50 years, so that's progress. Soon it will be 1 month away, for another two years. And when they say it's really

They had been saying it was 10 years away for ~50 years, so that's progress. Soon it will be 1 month away, for another two years. And when they say it's really here for real, there will still be a year of waiting.

setopt 1y ago
That’s because the true AGI requires nuclear fusion power, which is still 30 years away.
- vb-8448 1y ago
  :D Wait, a true AGI will solve the nuclear fusion power in a couple of hours ..... we have chicken/egg problem here :D
mrandish 1y ago
> And when they say it's really here for real, there will still be a year of waiting. Indeed. Although, there's a surprising number of people claiming it's already here now. And to describe the typical cycle completely, the final step is usually a few years after most people agree it's obvious it's already been here for a while yet no one can agree on which which year in the past it actually arrived.
- throwawaymaths 1y ago
  > Although, there's a surprising number of people claiming it's already here now. why is that surprising? nobody really agrees on what the threshold for AGI is, and if you break it down: is it artificial? yes. is it general? yes. you can ask it questions across almost any domain. is it intelligent? yes. like people say things like "my dog is intelligent" (rightly so). well is chatgpt more intelligent than a dog? yeah. hell it might give many undergrads a run for their money. a literal reading suggests agi is here. any claim to the negative is either homocentrism or just vibes.
  - skydhash 1y ago
    Can it do stuff? Yes Can it do stuff I need? Maybe Does it always do the stuff I need? No Pick your pair of question and answer.
    - throwawaymaths 1y ago
      humans are intelligent and most definitely are nowhere close to doing #3 some intelligent humans fail at #2.
      - skydhash 1y ago
        Which is why we have checklist and process that get us to #3. And we automate some of them to further reduce the chance of errors. The nice thing about automation is that you can just prove that it works once and you don't need to care that much after (deterministic process).
  - goatlover 1y ago
    > a literal reading suggests agi is here. any claim to the negative is either homocentrism or just vibes. Or disagreeing with your definition. AGI would need to be human-level across the board, not just chat bots. That includes robotics. Manipulating the real world is even more important for "human-level" intelligence than generating convincing and useful content. Also, there are still plenty of developers who don't think the LLMs are good enough to replace programmers yet. So not quite AGI. And the last 10% of solving a problem tends to be the hardest and takes the longest time.
    - throwawaymaths 1y ago
      did you miss the "homocentrism" part of my comment?
    - landryraccoon 1y ago
      That's moving the goalposts. ChatGPT would easily have passed any test in 1995 that programmers / philosophers would have set for AGI at that time. There was definitely no assumption that a computer would need to equal humans in manual dexterity tests to be considered intelligent. We've basically redefined AGI in a human centric way so that we don't have to say ChatGPT is AGI.
amelius 1y ago
> And when they say it's really here for real, there will still be a year of waiting. Yeah, like Tesla Autopilot?
birn559 1y ago
My guess is that in 10 years, it will still be 3-5 years away. Wouldn't be surprised if in 20 years, people come to the conclusion that AGI needs quantum computing and come fusion to be feasible.

setopt 1y ago

That’s because the true AGI requires nuclear fusion power, which is still 30 years away.

vb-8448 1y ago
:D Wait, a true AGI will solve the nuclear fusion power in a couple of hours ..... we have chicken/egg problem here :D

mrandish 1y ago

> And when they say it's really here for real, there will still be a year of waiting. Indeed. Although, there's a surprising number of people claiming it's already here now. And to describe the typical cycle completely, the final step is usually a few years after most people agree it's obvious it's already been here for a while yet no one can agree on which which year in the past it actually arrived.

throwawaymaths 1y ago
> Although, there's a surprising number of people claiming it's already here now. why is that surprising? nobody really agrees on what the threshold for AGI is, and if you break it down: is it artificial? yes. is it general? yes. you can ask it questions across almost any domain. is it intelligent? yes. like people say things like "my dog is intelligent" (rightly so). well is chatgpt more intelligent than a dog? yeah. hell it might give many undergrads a run for their money. a literal reading suggests agi is here. any claim to the negative is either homocentrism or just vibes.
- skydhash 1y ago
  Can it do stuff? Yes Can it do stuff I need? Maybe Does it always do the stuff I need? No Pick your pair of question and answer.
  - throwawaymaths 1y ago
    humans are intelligent and most definitely are nowhere close to doing #3 some intelligent humans fail at #2.
    - skydhash 1y ago
      Which is why we have checklist and process that get us to #3. And we automate some of them to further reduce the chance of errors. The nice thing about automation is that you can just prove that it works once and you don't need to care that much after (deterministic process).
- goatlover 1y ago
  > a literal reading suggests agi is here. any claim to the negative is either homocentrism or just vibes. Or disagreeing with your definition. AGI would need to be human-level across the board, not just chat bots. That includes robotics. Manipulating the real world is even more important for "human-level" intelligence than generating convincing and useful content. Also, there are still plenty of developers who don't think the LLMs are good enough to replace programmers yet. So not quite AGI. And the last 10% of solving a problem tends to be the hardest and takes the longest time.
  - throwawaymaths 1y ago
    did you miss the "homocentrism" part of my comment?
  - landryraccoon 1y ago
    That's moving the goalposts. ChatGPT would easily have passed any test in 1995 that programmers / philosophers would have set for AGI at that time. There was definitely no assumption that a computer would need to equal humans in manual dexterity tests to be considered intelligent. We've basically redefined AGI in a human centric way so that we don't have to say ChatGPT is AGI.

amelius 1y ago

> And when they say it's really here for real, there will still be a year of waiting. Yeah, like Tesla Autopilot?

birn559 1y ago

My guess is that in 10 years, it will still be 3-5 years away. Wouldn't be surprised if in 20 years, people come to the conclusion that AGI needs quantum computing and come fusion to be feasible.