3 ms·

He doesn't say that at all on the video. He refers to his experience in the industry in regards to other people making predictions. To be clear, he knows that F

by Geee 1y ago

He doesn't say that at all on the video. He refers to his experience in the industry in regards to other people making predictions. To be clear, he knows that FSD predictions were too optimistic, and that's why he says that AGI will take a decade at least. Almost everyone else in the industry is predicting AGI "soon", i.e. in 1 or 2 years.

dawnerd 1y ago
But we still don’t have FSD despite whatever robotaxi is doing. We’re not getting AGI in a decade.
- CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
  Saying "We won't get X in N" is easy and not very interesting, what about answering "When will we get X?" instead?
  - lossolo 1y ago
    There are literally zero people who know the answer to that question, or even have an estimate that is based on anything more than a hunch, it could be one year, or it could be ten years or more.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > literally zero people who know the answer to that question But plenty willing to guess. Folks without domain expertise tend to average the experts' guesses without accounting for the condition of being willing to guess in the first place.
      - jimbo808 1y ago
        If someone averages only the guesses from this subset, they’re ignoring the conditional selection effect, that the dataset (the set of guesses) is biased by the very act of being willing to guess. So the "average of guesses" doesn't represent the true expert population, and ignores the conditional selection effect. There's also just the reality that most of these experts have a lot of skin in the game, and there's lots of pressure in this world to a true believer, so I'm not going to buy into it too much.
    - CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
      But together with a bit reasoning, you have something like a HN comment that people willingly wanna discuss, instead of some off-hand "that'll never come". I'm fairly sure what type of sentiment I'd prefer, at least it'd be half-assed then.
      - dawnerd 1y ago
        Never said it wouldn’t come. Said it wouldn’t in a decade.
        CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
        > Never said it wouldn’t come. Said it wouldn’t in a decade. Yeah, easy and not very interesting.
        tim333 1y ago
        I think less than a decade on the basis that the hardware requirements to experiment with different algos have recently become quite reasonable so you get things like Karpathy's nanoGPT that he wrote in a month and can be trained for a few hundred dollars. People are going to be trying all sorts of ideas to try to get more human like intelligence.
        jimbo808 1y ago
        That is not a basis. LLMs do not even exist within the same plane of intelligence that AGI would. NanoGPT gets us no closer to AGI than Tylenol gets us to curing cancer. And predictions about when we'll "cure cancer" have been about as accurate as I suspect AGI will be. When you don't understand the problem or the solution, you can't estimate the timeline for the solution. LLMs regurgitate and summarize text with unreliable accuracy, and they feign intelligence by reproducing the work of intelligent humans.
        tim333 1y ago
        To me LLMs seem quite similar to the bit of the brain which does speaking without thinking about it. That would suggest people could build on that to do the other things the brain does like thinking and learning. We shall see I guess.
JKCalhoun 1y ago
If anything he comes across as repentant.
ben_w 1y ago
> Almost everyone else in the industry is predicting AGI "soon", i.e. in 1 or 2 years. I've not read any original quote from anyone saying that, either. Closest things I have seen were people doing a game of telephone with Altman's "thousands of days" ending up as that, and the 2027 paper which was predicated on the USA systematically deleting every obstacle rather than vibe-coding a tariff policy and having ICE mass-arrest people building relevant factories, and even then the authors indicated 2027 was on the optimistic side.
jimbo808 1y ago
No serious person is predicting that. There are a few categories of person who are making those predictions: - AI CEOs, who require hype to be able to keep hemorrhaging money long enough to... hemorrhage more money - The poor AI researchers the AI CEOs drag into public to lie in support of their narrative - People who are not close to the tech, but who are influential in poltiics, finance, podcasts, etc who are wholly convinced by the grifters above - they did a little bit of poking around and saw some smart looking regurgitated boilerplate - Grifter influencers, entrepreneurs, etc who don't care, they just want to push AI doom or vibe coding dreams for clicks, or sell some shitty AI solutions to companies eager to get in on the hype The people you don't hear from are the AI researchers who know most of this is bullshit, but they aren't going to go on the record publicly expressing that they don't believe in the tech they're working on, because they like to be employed (and for absurd amounts of money)

by Geee 1y ago

dawnerd 1y ago

But we still don’t have FSD despite whatever robotaxi is doing. We’re not getting AGI in a decade.

CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
Saying "We won't get X in N" is easy and not very interesting, what about answering "When will we get X?" instead?
- lossolo 1y ago
  There are literally zero people who know the answer to that question, or even have an estimate that is based on anything more than a hunch, it could be one year, or it could be ten years or more.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > literally zero people who know the answer to that question But plenty willing to guess. Folks without domain expertise tend to average the experts' guesses without accounting for the condition of being willing to guess in the first place.
    - jimbo808 1y ago
      If someone averages only the guesses from this subset, they’re ignoring the conditional selection effect, that the dataset (the set of guesses) is biased by the very act of being willing to guess. So the "average of guesses" doesn't represent the true expert population, and ignores the conditional selection effect. There's also just the reality that most of these experts have a lot of skin in the game, and there's lots of pressure in this world to a true believer, so I'm not going to buy into it too much.
  - CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
    But together with a bit reasoning, you have something like a HN comment that people willingly wanna discuss, instead of some off-hand "that'll never come". I'm fairly sure what type of sentiment I'd prefer, at least it'd be half-assed then.
    - dawnerd 1y ago
      Never said it wouldn’t come. Said it wouldn’t in a decade.
      - CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
        > Never said it wouldn’t come. Said it wouldn’t in a decade. Yeah, easy and not very interesting.
        tim333 1y ago
        I think less than a decade on the basis that the hardware requirements to experiment with different algos have recently become quite reasonable so you get things like Karpathy's nanoGPT that he wrote in a month and can be trained for a few hundred dollars. People are going to be trying all sorts of ideas to try to get more human like intelligence.
        jimbo808 1y ago
        That is not a basis. LLMs do not even exist within the same plane of intelligence that AGI would. NanoGPT gets us no closer to AGI than Tylenol gets us to curing cancer. And predictions about when we'll "cure cancer" have been about as accurate as I suspect AGI will be. When you don't understand the problem or the solution, you can't estimate the timeline for the solution. LLMs regurgitate and summarize text with unreliable accuracy, and they feign intelligence by reproducing the work of intelligent humans.
        tim333 1y ago
        To me LLMs seem quite similar to the bit of the brain which does speaking without thinking about it. That would suggest people could build on that to do the other things the brain does like thinking and learning. We shall see I guess.

JKCalhoun 1y ago

If anything he comes across as repentant.

ben_w 1y ago

> Almost everyone else in the industry is predicting AGI "soon", i.e. in 1 or 2 years. I've not read any original quote from anyone saying that, either. Closest things I have seen were people doing a game of telephone with Altman's "thousands of days" ending up as that, and the 2027 paper which was predicated on the USA systematically deleting every obstacle rather than vibe-coding a tariff policy and having ICE mass-arrest people building relevant factories, and even then the authors indicated 2027 was on the optimistic side.

jimbo808 1y ago

No serious person is predicting that. There are a few categories of person who are making those predictions: - AI CEOs, who require hype to be able to keep hemorrhaging money long enough to... hemorrhage more money - The poor AI researchers the AI CEOs drag into public to lie in support of their narrative - People who are not close to the tech, but who are influential in poltiics, finance, podcasts, etc who are wholly convinced by the grifters above - they did a little bit of poking around and saw some smart looking regurgitated boilerplate - Grifter influencers, entrepreneurs, etc who don't care, they just want to push AI doom or vibe coding dreams for clicks, or sell some shitty AI solutions to companies eager to get in on the hype The people you don't hear from are the AI researchers who know most of this is bullshit, but they aren't going to go on the record publicly expressing that they don't believe in the tech they're working on, because they like to be employed (and for absurd amounts of money)