5 ms·

And self sustained nuclear fusion is 20 years away, perpetually. On which evidence can he affirm a timeline for AGI when we can barely define intelligence?

adastra22 1y ago
Fusion used to be perpetually 30 years away. We’re making progress!
helterskelter 1y ago
I'd argue we've had more progress towards fusion than AGI.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- FiniteIntegral 1y ago
  Yet at the same time "towards" does not equate to "nearing". Relative terms for relative statements. Until there's a light at the end of the tunnel, we don't know how far we've got.
- chasd00 1y ago
  > I'd argue we've had more progress towards fusion than AGI. way more pogress toward fusion than AGI. Uncontrolled runaway fusion reactions were perfected in the 50s (iirc) with the thermonuclear bombs. Controllable fusion reactions have been common for many years. A controllable, self-sustaining, and profitable fusion reaction is all that is left. The goalposts that mark when AGI has been reached haven't even been defined yet.
CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
And a program that can write, sound and paint like a human was 20 years away perpetually as well, until it wasn't.
- galangalalgol 1y ago
  This is the key insight I believe. It is inherently unpredictable. There are species that pass the mirror test with a far fewer equivalent number of parameters than large models are using already. Carmack has said something to the effect that about 10ksloc would glue the right existing achictectures together in the right way to make agi, but that it might take decades to stumble on that way, or someone might find it this afternoon.
  - palmotea 1y ago
    > Carmack has said something to the effect that about 10ksloc would glue the right existing achictectures together in the right way to make agi What does he know about that?
    - galangalalgol 1y ago
      Well, he heads a company devoted to creating AGI, so admitting success in research is inherently unpredictable is surprisingly honest. As to whether his estimate that we have the pieces and just need to assemble them correctly is itself correct, I can only say it is as likely to be correct as any other researcher in the field. Which is to say its random.
- walterbell 1y ago
  > like a human Humans have since adapted to identify content differences and assign lower economic value to content created by programs, i.e. the humans being "impersonated" and "fooled" are themselves evolving in response to imitation.
- woodruffw 1y ago
  Is this true? I think it’s equally easy to claim that these phenomena are attributable to aesthetic adaptability in humans, rather than the ability of a machine to act like a human. The machine still doesn’t possess intentionality. This isn’t a bad thing, and I think LLMs are very impressive. But I do think we’d hesitate to call their behavior human-like if we weren’t predisposed to anthropomorphism.
nh23423fefe 1y ago
stop repeating that. first, it isn't true that intelligence is barely defined. https://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3639 https://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3639 second a definition is obviously not a prerequisite as evidenced by natural selection
- mathgradthrow 1y ago
  An Arxiv paper listing 70 different definitions of intelligence is not the evidence that you seem to think it is.
  - nh23423fefe 1y ago
    yes it is
- thomasdziedzic 1y ago
  > stop repeating that. first, it isn't true that intelligence is barely defined. https://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3639 https://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3639 I don't think he should stop, because I think he's right. We lack a definition of intelligence that doesn't do a lot of hand waving. You linked to a paper with 18 collective definitions, 35 psychologist definitions, and 18 ai researcher definitions of intelligence. And the conclusion of the paper was that they came up with their own definition of intelligence. That is not a definition in my book. > second a definition is obviously not a prerequisite as evidenced by natural selection right, we just need a universe, several billions of years and sprinkle some evolution and we'll also get intelligence, maybe.
  - nh23423fefe 1y ago
    cool, you can move goalposts and claim no true scotsman would define intelligence that way; in addition you are confusing sufficient and necessary.

adastra22 1y ago

Fusion used to be perpetually 30 years away. We’re making progress!

helterskelter 1y ago

I'd argue we've had more progress towards fusion than AGI.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
FiniteIntegral 1y ago
Yet at the same time "towards" does not equate to "nearing". Relative terms for relative statements. Until there's a light at the end of the tunnel, we don't know how far we've got.
chasd00 1y ago
> I'd argue we've had more progress towards fusion than AGI. way more pogress toward fusion than AGI. Uncontrolled runaway fusion reactions were perfected in the 50s (iirc) with the thermonuclear bombs. Controllable fusion reactions have been common for many years. A controllable, self-sustaining, and profitable fusion reaction is all that is left. The goalposts that mark when AGI has been reached haven't even been defined yet.

CaptainOfCoit 1y ago

And a program that can write, sound and paint like a human was 20 years away perpetually as well, until it wasn't.

galangalalgol 1y ago
This is the key insight I believe. It is inherently unpredictable. There are species that pass the mirror test with a far fewer equivalent number of parameters than large models are using already. Carmack has said something to the effect that about 10ksloc would glue the right existing achictectures together in the right way to make agi, but that it might take decades to stumble on that way, or someone might find it this afternoon.
- palmotea 1y ago
  > Carmack has said something to the effect that about 10ksloc would glue the right existing achictectures together in the right way to make agi What does he know about that?
  - galangalalgol 1y ago
    Well, he heads a company devoted to creating AGI, so admitting success in research is inherently unpredictable is surprisingly honest. As to whether his estimate that we have the pieces and just need to assemble them correctly is itself correct, I can only say it is as likely to be correct as any other researcher in the field. Which is to say its random.
walterbell 1y ago
> like a human Humans have since adapted to identify content differences and assign lower economic value to content created by programs, i.e. the humans being "impersonated" and "fooled" are themselves evolving in response to imitation.
woodruffw 1y ago
Is this true? I think it’s equally easy to claim that these phenomena are attributable to aesthetic adaptability in humans, rather than the ability of a machine to act like a human. The machine still doesn’t possess intentionality. This isn’t a bad thing, and I think LLMs are very impressive. But I do think we’d hesitate to call their behavior human-like if we weren’t predisposed to anthropomorphism.

nh23423fefe 1y ago

stop repeating that. first, it isn't true that intelligence is barely defined. https://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3639 https://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3639 second a definition is obviously not a prerequisite as evidenced by natural selection

mathgradthrow 1y ago
An Arxiv paper listing 70 different definitions of intelligence is not the evidence that you seem to think it is.
- nh23423fefe 1y ago
  yes it is
thomasdziedzic 1y ago
> stop repeating that. first, it isn't true that intelligence is barely defined. https://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3639 https://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3639 I don't think he should stop, because I think he's right. We lack a definition of intelligence that doesn't do a lot of hand waving. You linked to a paper with 18 collective definitions, 35 psychologist definitions, and 18 ai researcher definitions of intelligence. And the conclusion of the paper was that they came up with their own definition of intelligence. That is not a definition in my book. > second a definition is obviously not a prerequisite as evidenced by natural selection right, we just need a universe, several billions of years and sprinkle some evolution and we'll also get intelligence, maybe.
- nh23423fefe 1y ago
  cool, you can move goalposts and claim no true scotsman would define intelligence that way; in addition you are confusing sufficient and necessary.