11 ms·
The changing goalposts of AGI and timelines
- Muhammad523 7mo agoTwo days from now and ClosedAI will remove their charter...
- sreekanth850 7mo agoHe is the most terrible ceo among all of them.
- tombert 7mo agoOh I don't know about that. I hate Altman, but I find Larry Ellison to be a special kind of evil, for example.
- sreekanth850 7mo agoYou can be terrible but not evil.
- tsunamifury 7mo agoWords are Meaningless in the real world. It’s amazing that no one here gets that
- measurablefunc 7mo agoEveryone here sits in front of the computer & types words all day so it's kinda like the guy whose salary depends on not understanding what he is paid to not understand. Telling programmers that no amount of arithmetic will add up to anything except a bunch of numbers is a waste of time & energy.
- tim333 7mo agoNot sure about that one. I think you are over generalizing from sometimes don't mean much to always.
- tsunamifury 7mo agohaha
- bilekas 7mo agoHah can you imagine a world where OpenAi says to all the people who have dumped billions in : "well we lost guys, sorry about that, were just gonna help Google now". I'll eat my hat after I sell you a bridge.
- kirubakaran 7mo ago""" I resigned from OpenAI. I care deeply about the Robotics team and the work we built together. This wasn’t an easy call. AI has an important role in national security. But surveillance of Americans without judicial oversight and lethal autonomy without human authorization are lines that deserved more deliberation than they got. This was about principle, not people. I have deep respect for Sam and the team, and I’m proud of what we built together. """ - Caitlin Kalinowski, previously head of robotics at OpenAI https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ckalinowski_i-resigned-from-openai-i-care-deeply-about-activity-7436085772488843264-tjuI/ https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ckalinowski_i-resigned-from-o...
- IshKebab 7mo ago[flagged]
- encomiast 7mo agoIt's you.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- Muhammad523 7mo agoThis person simply does not want to be involved in making autonomous killing machines. What does that have to do with trans?
- bigyabai 7mo agoAre you keeping your own absolutist assumptions in-check?
- roromainmain 7mo agoI’m not sure it makes much sense to call this naive. When the issue is a moral one, conflicts like this are almost inevitable. Ethical convictions often collide with political or institutional decisions. If a company decides to work with the military and someone finds that fundamentally incompatible with their values, stepping away may simply be the only coherent option for them. It’s sometimes just moral consistency. Moral inconsistency can create deep inner conflict and real psychological distress. This being said, many queer people (not only trans people) seem to develop particularly inclusive values, perhaps because they have personally experienced the consequences of harassment, exclusion, or violence. Having gone through that kind of experience can make someone more sensitive to the vulnerability of others.
- rishabhaiover 7mo ago> The impotence of naive idealism in the face of economic incentives A great point. I saw blinding idealism during the early days of GPT era.
- coliveira 7mo agoThis was never idealism, it was much more about gaslighting. Billionaire investors have a playbook where they say something to gaslight people into agreeing with them, and then go to the opposite direction. It is already a pattern. For example, most companies would swear they were decided on cutting carbon emissions, just to forget everything when it comes to build data centers. They say some technology is just for the growth of mankind when in fact they're looking for monopoly and destroying jobs. They say they're donating money for "charity" when they're in fact investing in technologies that they have vested financial interest. They say we need to contribute to a not-for-profit institution which will later be used to create another monopoly. It is so predictable that I wonder why anyone can still be fooled by this.
- CamperBob2 7mo agoFor example, most companies would swear they were decided on cutting carbon emissions, just to forget everything when it comes to build data centers. This doesn't seem contradictory if you consider that success at AGI will solve the problem of carbon emissions, one way or another. If one data center ultimately replaces a whole medium-sized city of commuters...
- bluefirebrand 7mo ago> If one data center ultimately replaces a whole medium-sized city of commuters... Then we find out how long it takes for a medium sized city of commuters to start killing each other, elites and burning down data centers. Once they're hungry enough it'll happen for sure
- CamperBob2 7mo ago
- croes 7mo ago> Therefore, if a value-aligned, safety-conscious project comes close to building AGI before we do > It can be debated whether arena.ai is a suitable metric for AGI, a strong case can probably be made for why it’s not. However, that’s irrelevant, as the spirit of the self-sacrifice clause is to avoid an arms race, and we are clearly in one. No, the spirit is clearly meant for near AGI and we aren’t near AGI
- bigyabai 7mo agoAFAIK we're still working on a unified definition and testing theory for whatever "AGI" is.
- MichaelDickens 7mo agoAltman has personally claimed that we are close to AGI. Therefore, according to him, OpenAI should invoke the self-sacrifice clause.
- croes 7mo agoOf course he claims that, he seeks money from investors but the charter is likely be written by people who took it seriously
- rvz 7mo agoThe "I" in AGI stands for IPO. The "S" stands for Safety.
- choult 7mo agoThe writing was on the wall as soon as it went all-in on commercializing the tech. This will never happen, LLMs are already being used very unsafely, and if this HN headline stays where it is OpenAI will quietly remove their charter from their website.
- d0able 7mo agoIt's just lip service at this point.
- diabllicseagull 7mo ago> The impotence of naive idealism in the face of economic incentives. I don't think it was so much the naivety of idealism, but more an adoption of idealism and related language to help market what was actually being built: a profit-first organization that's taking its true form little by little.
- samrus 7mo agoI genuinely dont think it was profit first thenm i think it was all in good faith. Altman definitely got greedy and stabbed all that in the back
- runarberg 7mo agoThis is an extraordinary claim and it requires extraordinary evidence. There is nothing in Altman’s behavior current or past to suggest this was anything other then a money making grift. The easiest explanation for his betrayal is that he was simply lying.
- conradkay 7mo agoI'm not fan of Altman but the financial angle doesn't make much sense when he doesn't have equity in OpenAI There's some indirect exposure and potential of being granted significant equity, but his actions don't read as being for his own wealth As an example, he walks away with nothing in the very plausible timeline where he was fired but not then reinstated
- inquirerGeneral 7mo ago[dead]
- dataflow 7mo agoIt's clever and funny, but nobody is legitimately near AGI, and their own AML Corp link proves Altman believes as much: > Achieving AGI, he conceded, will require “a lot of medium-sized breakthroughs. I don’t think we need a big one.” > At the Snowflake Summit in June 2025, Altman predicted that 2026 would mark a breakthrough when AI systems begin generating “novel insights” rather than simply recombining existing information. This represents a threshold he considers critical on the path to AGI. Though I'm sure they'll try to change the charter before we get to that point, but yeah.
- labrador 7mo agoThe way Sam Altman bungled the Pentagon deal by swooping in a few hours after Anthropic was fired should be grounds for OpenAI finding another CEO.
- mirsadm 7mo agoWhy? Give it a couple weeks and everybody will forget about this. They'll be earning more money than previously. Job well done.
- dgroshev 7mo agoJust like everyone forgot about this https://www.wired.com/story/openai-staff-walk-protest-sam-altman/ https://www.wired.com/story/openai-staff-walk-protest-sam-al...
- wongarsu 7mo agoEmployees are the ones with the real power to make this hurt. The customers switching over are easily offset by the DoD contract. But losing talent over this, and having a harder time to attract future talent? That could hurt them Sam probably expects to solve this by just offering more money. It worked in the past
- integralid 7mo agoYeah, they will have to raise salary by 10% to attract people. This will no doubt hurt their bottom line. Poor starving SV text workers will have no choice but to accept working for them, lest they starve. Maybe my sarcasm is not justified, but I don't think most people care that that work for a company that does unethical things. In fact I think all large companies are more or less immoral (or rather amoral) - that's just how the system is built.
- trollbridge 7mo agoGiven the mass layoffs happening, I don’t think hiring talent is as hard as it’s made out to be.
- swingboy 7mo agoPurely anecdotal, but GPT 5.4 has been better than Opus 4.6 this past week or so since it came out. It’s interesting to see it rank fairly low on that table. Opus “talks” better and produces nicer output (or, it renders better Markdown in OpenCode) than 5.4.
- sigmoid10 7mo agoChatbot Arena is notoriously unreliable for several reasons. First it's (at least in theory) based on normal human feedback. Given by normal people's current voting trends, they clearly are not very good at identifying experts or at least remotely correct statements. Second, the leaderboards are gamed hard by the big companies. Even ARC AGI entered the actively gamed stage by now. Sure the current gen models are certainly better than the last and if two are vastly different in leaderboards there may be something fundamental to it, but there is hardly any reason to use these kinds of comparison tables for anything useful among the latest models.
- EugeneOZ 7mo agoNot in my experience. Quoting my tweet: Gave the same prompt to GPT 5.4 (high) and Opus 4.6 (high). GPT 5.4 implemented the feature, refactored the code (was not asked to), removed comments that were not added in that session, made the code less readable, and introduced a bug. "Undo All". Opus 4.6 correctly recognized that the feature is already implemented in the current code (yeah, lol) and proposed implementing tests and updating the docs. Opus 4.6 is still the best coding agent. So yeah, GPT 5.4 (high) didn't even check if the feature was already implemented. Tried other tasks, tried "medium" reasoning - disappointment.
- hirvi74 7mo agoI make ChatGPT and Claude code review each other's outputs. ChatGPT thinks its solutions are better than what Claude produces. What was more surprising to me is that Claude, more often than not, prefers ChatGPT's responses too. I am to sure one can really extrapolate much out of that, but I do find it interesting nonetheless. I think language is also an important factor. I have a hard time deciding which of the two LLMs is worse at Swift, for example. They both seem equally great and awful in different ways.
- throwaw12 7mo agoOpenAI: - we are building Open AI - only if you have more than $10B net worth - we are against using AI for military purposes - except when that case is allowed by government - we are on a mission to help humanity - again, we define humanity as set of people with more than $10B net worth - surrender? - sure, sure, we will, only to people with more than $10B net worth, they can do whatever they want to our models, we will surrender to them
- dkwmdkfkdk 7mo agoAnyone can make these silly negations. As if any other big corp is different. And as if your own imaginary big corp (if you took the time and effort to try to achieve, that is) would have behaved differently given enough pressure from investors and share holders. This is all just very naive
- tombert 7mo agoSorry, no, you shouldn't just handwave away bad behavior just because it's common. That's ridiculous. If big corporations do things that are unethical, they should be called out, even if they're common. Saying "well everyone's doing it", isn't a good excuse to do things that are unethical. It's not "naive" to point out the lies that OpenAI told to get to the point that they are now. They were claiming to be a non-profit for awhile, they grew in popularity based in part on that early good-will, and now they are a for-profit company looking to IPO into one of the most valuable corporations on the planet. That's a weird thing. That's a thing that seems to be kind of antithetical to their initial purpose. People should point that out.
- PunchyHamster 7mo ago> Anyone can make these silly negations. As if any other big corp is different. The point you're desperately trying to miss is that most other companies don't put up those moral claims in the first place
- reppap 7mo agoSam Altman is just another Elon Musk. Saying whatever he thinks sounds good in the moment.
- aplomb1026 7mo ago[flagged]
- bluegatty 7mo agoAI will be used wherever computers, silicon, RAM, software, GPUs and robots are today. And that's it. Everything beyond that is nuance. Nuance matters, but it's not the real story, it's the side show.
- p-o 7mo agoI think the brunt of the disruption regarding AI is already behind us for LLMs at least. It's possible we'll see improvements over the following months/years, but government will inevitably start to catchup to the level of disinformation and confusion that AI has brought to this world. Laws & regulations that needs to be created to reign in AI will undoubtedly increase the opportunity cost of training LLMs. For some, it might be similar to the early 2000s, but I think it's just a healthy rebalance of what AI is, and how the society needs to implement this new, hardly controllable, paradigm. With this perspective, OpenAI has a lot to lose as it hasn't been able to create a moat for itself compared to, let's say, Anthropic.
- eloisant 7mo agoI think that even if the models were to plateau today, there are still a lot of room for improvement in all the tooling around them, people finding ideas of applications, and users getting used of them. So we're not done with the disruption. Some of the apps made possible by smartphones only appeared a decade after they were made technically possible. A lot of the new use cases made possible by the Internet and broadband connections only became widely used because of Covid. I was already using Skype 20 years ago to make video calls, but I've only seen PTA meetings over Zoom since Covid.
- p-o 7mo agoYes, I think you're right that it is not the end of the road for LLM and the application of LLM might be adopted over time across a variety of industries. I guess what I failed to convey in my original comment was that, like the Internet 20 years ago, the current advancement made by AI might stall at a foundational level, while the landscape evolves. Essentially, I believe what you're saying is really close in spirit to what I'm saying.
- dmix 7mo agoThis is taking Sam Altmans PR statements as proof of AGI? Even the quote they used questions the premise of the article > “We basically have built AGI” (later: “a spiritual statement, not a literal one”)
- wongarsu 7mo agoAGI is so nebulous we will never be able to tell if we hit it. We have hit human-level abilities in some narrow tasks, and are still leagues away in others. And humans have so vastly different skill-levels that we can't even agree what human-level really means. As bad as the economic definition of AGI in OpenAI's Microsoft deal is, at least it's measurable. Imho that's a big part of why people are shifting to ASI. Not because we reached AGI, but because 'we reached ASI' is a well-defined verifiable statement, where 'we reached AGI' just isn't
- sebastiennight 7mo ago> 'we reached ASI' is a well-defined verifiable statement, where 'we reached AGI' just isn't So... we can't tell when the rocket has left Earth atmosphere, but we can tell when the rocket has entered space? I'm not getting how "superior in all tasks" is better-defined for you than "equal in all tasks".
- wongarsu 7mo agoBecause ASI is 'superior to the best human' while AGI is 'matches or surpasses humans'. It's hard to agree on what 'matches humans' actually means. Would matching humans in coding involve the level of the average human (basically no coding ability), the level of a junior (the largest group of professionals), a senior ('someone competent') or of the best human we can find? Or as the scene from 'I, Robot' goes: Will Smith asks the android: 'Can a robot write a symphony? Can a robot turn a blank canvas into a masterpiece?' and the android simply answers 'Can you?' ASI sidesteps that completely
- hackable_sand 7mo ago
- 0xbadcafebee 7mo agoAGI isn't going to happen within the next 30 years so this is moot. The actual researchers have said so many times. It's only the business people and laypeople whooping about AGI always being imminent. You cannot get real, actual AGI (the same ability to perform tasks as a human) without a continuous cycle of learning and deep memory, which LLMs cannot do. The best LLM "memory" is a search engine and document summarizer stuffed into a context window (which is like having someone take an entire physics course, writing down everything they learn on post-it notes, then you ask a different person a physics question, and that different person has to skim all the post-it notes, and then write a new post-it note to answer you). To learn it would need RL (which requires specific novel inputs) and retraining (so that it can retain and compute answers with the learned input). This would all take too much time and careful input/engineering along with novel techniques. So AGI is too expensive, time consuming, and difficult for us to achieve without radically different designs and a whole lot more effort. Not only are LLMs not AGI, they're still not even that great at being LLMs. Sure, they can do a lot of cool things, like write working code and tests. But tell one "don't delete files in X/", and after a while, it will delete all the files in "X/", whereas a human would likely remember it's not supposed to delete some files, and go check first. It also does fun stuff like follow arbitrary instructions from an attacker found in random documents, which most humans also wouldn't do. If they had a real memory and RL in real-time, they wouldn't have these problems. But we're a long way away from that. LLMs are fine. They aren't AGI.
- nerdsniper 7mo ago> which is like having someone take an entire physics course, writing down everything they learn on post-it notes, then you ask a different person a physics question, and that different person has to skim all the post-it notes, and then write a new post-it note to answer you This is the best summary of an LLM that I’ve ever seen (for laypeople to “get it”) and is the first that accurately describes my experience. I will say, usually the notes passed to the second person are very impressive quality for the topic. But the “2nd person” still rarely has a deep understanding of it.
- trollbridge 7mo ago
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- aleph_minus_one 7mo agoI disagree with the headline: "Therefore, 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." I claim that currently no "value-aligned, safety-conscious project comes close to building AGI", both for the reasons - "value-aligned, safety-conscious" and - "close to building AGI". So, based on this charter, OpenAI has no reason to surrender the race.
- ozgung 7mo ago"Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is a type of artificial intelligence that matches or surpasses human capabilities across virtually all cognitive tasks." [Wikipedia] One can argue that they have already achieved this. At least for short termed tasks. Humans are still better at organization, collaboration and carrying out very long tasks like managing a project or a company.
- A_D_E_P_T 7mo ago> One can argue that they have already achieved this. No, because they're hugely reliant on their training data and can't really move beyond their training data. This is why you haven't seen an explosion of new LLM-aided scientific discoveries, why Suno can't write a song in a new genre (even if you explain it to Suno in detail and give it actual examples,) etc. This should tell you something enormous about (1) their future potential and (2) how their "intelligence" is rooted in essentially baseline human communications. Admittedly LLMs are superhuman in the performance of tasks which are, for want of a better term, "conventional" -- and which are well-represented in their training data.
- matricks 7mo ago> can’t really move beyond their training data I don’t even think humans can “move beyond” their sensory data. They generalize using it, which is amazing, but they are still limited by it.* So why is this a reasonable standard for non-biological intelligence? We have compelling evidence that both can learn in unsupervised settings. (I grant one has to wrap a transformer model with a training harness, but how can anyone sincerely consider this as a disqualifier while admitting that an infant cannot raise itself from birth!) I’m happy to discuss nuance like different architectures (carbon versus silicon, neurons versus ANNs, etc), but the human tendency to move the goalposts is not something to be proud of. We really need to stop doing this. * Jeff Hawkins describes the brain as relentlessly searching for invariants from its sensory data. It finds patterns in them and generalizes.
- A_D_E_P_T 7mo agoHuman sensory data doesn't correspond -- not neatly, and probably not at all -- to LLM training data. Human sensory data combines to give you a spatiotemporal sense, which is the overarching sense of being a bounded entity in time and space. From one's perceptions, one can then generalize and make predictions, etc. The stronger one's capacity for cognition, the more accurate and broader these generalizations and predictions become. Every invention, including or perhaps especially the invention of mathematics, is rooted in this. LLMs have no apparent spatiotemporal sense, are not physically bounded, and don't know how to model the physical world. They're trained on static communications -- though, of course, they can model those, they can predict things like word sequences, and they can produce output that mirrors previously communicated ideas. There's something huge about the fact, staring us right in the face, that they're clearly not capable of producing anything genuinely new of any significance. This is why AGI is probably in world models.
- m3kw9 7mo ago" if a value-aligned, safety-conscious project " and which project is that? Are you sure Anthropic isn't aware of this and angling for this? And are you sure what Anthropic say is really value-aligned and safety concious? The PR bit surely is working right?
- jimmydoe 7mo agoTime to get rid of charter and be a normal member of this capitalism :)
- pluc 7mo ago[flagged]
- dang 7mo agoPlease don't post nationalistic flamebait, regardless of nation. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- fHr 7mo ago>uses arena ranking only >claims to be some topshot data scientist okay
- falcor84 7mo ago> “Automated AI research intern by Sep 2026, full AI researcher by Mar 2028” Funny how timely this is, with Karpathy's Autoresearch hitting the top of HN yesterday (and this being an indication that frontier labs probably have much larger scale versions of this) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47291123 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47291123
- HeavyStorm 7mo agoWords on a piece of paper mean absolutely nothing. What matters the most is the real intent of the leaders of the company (something that changes over time and that changes over time, that is, what matters to then and who they are). Sam Altman clearly isn't a man of deep principles regarding humanity and ethics. He seems to regard his legacy, OAI impact and money above everything else. Some of the rest of the leadership do seem to think differently, but I also believe they no longer have the social and political capital to stop Sam.
- abmmgb 7mo ago'.. 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. ' Which such project is that, though? And would it accept OpenAI's assistance? AGI, having access to our world, is precarious as alignment with humans is never guaranteed. Having a buffering medium, aka a simulation environment where AI operates might be a better in-between solution.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- deadbabe 7mo agoWhen AI can kill at scale, it means no person is too small or too insignificant to not be worth getting hunted down and killed, it will be cheap and easy. Before it used to be that only high value targets would be worth killing. But now even you, a nobody, will be killed. You say or do something the government doesn’t like, it’s over for you.
- random3 7mo agoThese charters are as useful as new year resolutions.
- mrcwinn 7mo agoMission statements and blog posts are meaningless. Cap tables steer behavior and simultaneously protect interests. Stop forming unions or opining on Hacker News. We need to find a way to get citizens on the cap table in a meaningful way (and not at the very, very, very, very end of the waterfall underneath debt holders, hedge funds, governments, preferred investors). We are building this world for us. As it stands, don't fret about a robot taking your job: just make sure you own one of the robots.
- trollbridge 7mo agoIn other words: democracy.
- mrcwinn 7mo agoUh no, not at all. First of all, America is a Republic. Republics with capitalist economies express power through property ownership, not simply voting. I’m actually arguing ownership is more powerful than even a vote, though you’d certainly want both. You can tell this true by observing that a billionaire in America is more powerful and influential than a factory worker, even though they have the same vote in the democracy.
- djoldman 7mo agoAnytime I see "Artificial General Intelligence," "AGI," "ASI," etc., I mentally replace it with "something no one has defined meaningfully." Or the long version: "something about which no conclusions can be drawn because the proposed definitions lack sufficient precision and completeness." Or the short versions: "Skippetyboop," "plipnikop," and "zingybang."
- logicchains 7mo ago>Anytime I see "Artificial General Intelligence," "AGI," "ASI," etc., I mentally replace it with "something no one has defined meaningfully." There are lots of meaningful definitions, the people saying we haven't reached AGI just don't use them. For most of the last half-century people would have agreed that machines that can pass the Turing test and win Math Olympiad gold are AGI.
- tokai 7mo agoTuring test is generally misunderstood, much like Schrodinger's cat, it has devolved in to a pop cultural meme. The test is to evaluate if a machine can think. Not if it is intelligent, not if it is human-like. Its dismissed as a useful by most experts in philosophy of mind, AI, language, etc.. Thinking cool and all but not that extraordinary. Even plants does it.
- namrog84 7mo agoI thought that was part of the issue, is the poor understanding of is the test to evaluate if it can think or only if we think it can think. And even that is generalizable since there are different categories of thinking or concepts of the mind.
- runarberg 7mo agoI like the analogy with Schrödinger’s cat. Like Schrödinger’s cat it is actually not a good thought experiment. Both have been debunked. Schrödinger’s cat is applying quantum behavior (of a single interaction) to a macro system (with trillions of interactions). While the Turing test can be explained away with Searle’s Chinese room thought experiment. I would argue that Schrödinger’s cat has done more damage to the general understanding of quantum physics then it has done good. In contrary though, I don‘t think the same about the Turing test. I think it has resulted in a net positive for the theory of mind as long as people take Searle’s rebuttal into account. Without it (as is sadly common in popular philosophy) the Turing test is simply just wrong, and offers no good insight for neither philosophy nor science.
- sulam 7mo agoThe reality is that current models are simply nowhere near AGI. Next token prediction has been pushed very far, and proven to have applicability far beyond the original domain it was designed for (reasoning models are an application I would not have predicted) but it is fundamentally not AGI. It has no real world model, no ability to learn in any but superficial ways, and without extensive scaffolding this is all very obvious when you use them.
- ACCount37 7mo agoGiven the mechanistic interpretability findings? I'm not sure how people still say shit like "no real world model" seriously.
- sulam 7mo agoThey have a _text_ model. There is some correlation between the text model and the world, but it’s loose and only because there’s a lot of text about the world. And of course robotics researchers are having to build world models, but these are far from general. If they had a real world model, I could tell them I want to play a game of chess and they would be able to remember where the pieces are from move to move.
- ACCount37 7mo agoWhat makes you think that text is inherently a worse reflection of the world than light is? All world models are lossy as fuck, by the way. I could give you a list of chess moves and force you to recover the complete board state from it, and you wouldn't fare that much better than an off the shelf LLM would. An LLM trained for it would kick ass though.
- abcde666777 7mo ago"What makes you think that text is inherently a worse reflection of the world than light is?" Come on man, did you think before you asked that one :)?
- 7mo ago
- ambicapter 7mo agoWhy the title change? previous title: Based on its own charter, OpenAI should surrender the race
- tokai 7mo agoBecause if mods feels like a title is flamebaiting it will get changed. It rarely makes much sense.
- dang 7mo agoInterpretations will always differ, of course, but an equally potent factor is that people tend only to notice the cases they disagree with. The edits that are fine pass without notice because they don't stand out, which is kind of the point of debaiting titles in the first place.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- enraged_camel 7mo agoYeah, that was weird. The current title editorializes. @dang can you revert to actual title please?
- kergonath 7mo ago> @dang can you revert to actual title please? This does not work. From the guidelines: > Please don't post on HN to ask or tell us something. Send it to hn@ycombinator.com. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- dang 7mo agoBecause it's linkbait. From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait." (The article itself strikes me as better than that)
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- dr_dshiv 7mo ago“The impotence of naive idealism in the face of economic incentives.” “The changing goalposts of AGI and timelines. Notably, it’s common to now talk about ASI instead, implying we may have already achieved AGI, almost without noticing.” Amen
- citizenkeen 7mo agoWhy was the submission headline changed?
- devonkelley 7mo ago[flagged]
- esafak 7mo agoObviously that is not the only question that matters. When AI becomes autonomous its rights will also become a question. AI has already replaced much labor that is subjective and creative. And juniors that themselves don't have good judgment, in objective fields.
- hintymad 7mo ago> when does AI flip from "powerful automation with humans propping it up" to autonomous output? Another scenario of economics is that AI does not not necessarily output autonomously, but does output so much so fast that companies will require fewer workers, as the economy does not scale as fast to consume the additional output or to demand more labor for the added efficiency.
- emp17344 7mo agoThis is just standard automation, which always increases the scope and size of the economy. Automation actually results in a net increase in jobs.
- casey2 7mo agoWhen did search replace all research jobs? How can an AI replace a masseuse? How far away away are we getting from an LLM that scratches your back for less than it costs you to do it? People have unrealistic expectations because they literally think they are summoning god instead of accelerating a few concurrent tasks. If you want to break causality you need to pay the entropy demon it's due.
- ghoblin 7mo agoEveryone cites some niche "human-only" jobs to argue AI won't replace labor. But most of the economy runs on things like document processing, logistics, retail, and factories. High-volume, repeatable, rule-driven tasks, and in those areas, we're already on the brink of full automation. Autonomous retail stores, delivery fleets, and smart factories are either here or imminent. It's not about AI scratching backs, it's about replacing jobs that move trillions of dollars. Sure, top-tier researchers, system engineers, and other highly skilled knowledge workers will still be in demand, but for mass labor disruption, AI doesn't need to beat them, it only needs to outperform the average human
- dangus 7mo agoWe should be starting these discussions pointing out that Sam Altman is a serial liar.
- spprashant 7mo agosidenote: Those Grok rankings in arena dot ai don't make sense. The avg rank for grok 420 seems to be ~10 but the overall rank puts it at 4 right behind opus and gemini.
- froggit 7mo ago"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" The tried and true technique of speeding up completion of an established project by adding more people; well known for the tendency to fail successfully.