8 ms·

Or you deeply suffer from normalcy bias. Not believing that AGI is possible is irrational and unscientific imo, the human brain exists, it is not made of magic,

by trebaud 3mo ago

Or you deeply suffer from normalcy bias. Not believing that AGI is possible is irrational and unscientific imo, the human brain exists, it is not made of magic, it can reproduced. It is as simple as that. We can debate about timelines, architectures that may lead us there, etc... You can even talk all day long about definitions of AGI, and people waste their time doing that. But saying that the human brain cognitive capabilities cannot be reproduced on other types of substrates is stupid at this point.

lins1909 3mo ago
How can not believing something that hasn't been proven be unscientific? Do you know that words mean things?
- ToValueFunfetti 3mo ago
  Science means the pursuit of knowledge. It doesn't mean "only believing proven things". If we're going to be rude, lets at least take the time to be right.
  - cindyllm 3mo ago
    [dead]
- trebaud 3mo ago
  You dont seem to understand what proof means. Human brain is made of matter, matter can be arranged to make a thing that reproduces human brain properties. What's the confusion here? I say its unscientific because it places the human brain beyond the scope of what can be operated on. Not having the knowledge or tech yet to achieve that is irrelevant since we have an existence proof.
  - TheOtherHobbes 3mo ago
    Even if we accept your premise, and not everyone does, the confusion is whether we're capable of creating an equivalent arrangement, even in principle, using alternative materials. That's not "irrelevant", it's fundamental.
JumpCrisscross 3mo ago
> Not believing that AGI is possible One can simultaneously believe AGI is possible, be only modestly sceptical that our current methods are likely to yield it in the near term and still find the religious ferocity enveloping its discussion silly. > saying that the human brain cognitive capabilities cannot be reproduced on other types of substrates is stupid at this point Straw man. Nobody argued this. The discussion is around how urgent it is to policy treat a future hypothetical.
- ToValueFunfetti 3mo ago
  Nobody argued anything. GP just dismissed it as religion without engaging with a word of the material. Parent is taking a stab at why. Not that I'm complaining. Cynicism is the failure mode I rely on HN for. It's the populism that's been getting to me.
  - JumpCrisscross 3mo ago
    > GP just dismissed it as religion without engaging with a word of the material Fair enough. I didn’t see anything novel in the article. So treating it as a motif within the abovequoted “Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People” context is fair and a real argument. > Cynicism Cynicism isn’t the opposite of blind optimism. Nihilism is. I’m not seeing a rejection of the article as being baseless as cynical or nihilist. It’s just pointing out a cultural thread that doesn’t seem to be useful.
    - ToValueFunfetti 3mo ago
      I hate to get bogged down in semantics, but with the hope that one of the stronger top-level critiques makes it into the top slot here and this conversation gets buried: Cynicism is defined as >An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others. I'm not saying that cynicism is automatically wrong, just that I once could trust that, when HN is wrong, it is due to cynicism applied in excess.
      - 3mo ago
gilrain 3mo ago
> Not believing that AGI is possible is irrational and unscientific imo This is an objectively wrong opinion.
davemp 3mo ago
There is a vast gulf between theoretically possible and technologically feasible. If you can’t provide a realistic path to achieve something, you’re asking people to believe in science fiction. You could tell me that a rock’s molecules are comprised of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Blood is also entirely protons, neutrons, and electrons; so theoretically, one could rearrange stone into blood. But without an actual method to do so, it sounds like you’re telling me that you can squeeze blood from a stone. > the human brain exists, it is not made of magic, it can reproduced Yeah. It only takes 9 months and ~18 years of training… > But saying that the human brain cognitive capabilities cannot be reproduced on other types of substrates is stupid at this point Let’s be clear. Everyone is talking about silicon transistors here. That’s what we’ve got. Digital computers have real limits. Sensors and other sources of training data have real limitations. It’s not clear that we can organize them in a way to reproduce organic brains.
- throw310822 3mo ago
  Jesus... This morning while I was drinking coffee and staring at the screen (it's Saturday) an agent did the equivalent of days of my work, reading code, understanding, hypothesizing, comparing, using tools, writing scripts, launching compilers and running tests, identifying problems and proposing solutions, and more. Only someone who hasn't spent a second reflecting about what it means to think and to be intelligent can claim that we miss a realistic path to intelligence. It's so damn clueless and stubborn and confidently wrong that it annoys me immensely, so sorry for the rant.
  - 27183 3mo ago
    > reading code, understanding, hypothesizing, comparing, ...identifying problems and proposing solutions, and more Except it did none of those things, really, because that's not how it works. This might help, it's a good writeup: https://www.0xkato.xyz/how-llms-actually-work/ https://www.0xkato.xyz/how-llms-actually-work/ We know how these machines work, it's not mysterious, there's nothing "extra" happening.
    - sudb 3mo ago
victorbjorklund 3mo ago
It’s also theoretically possible to travel almost at the speed of light. Doesn’t mean it’s rational to talk about it today as if imminent.

by trebaud 3mo ago

lins1909 3mo ago

How can not believing something that hasn't been proven be unscientific? Do you know that words mean things?

ToValueFunfetti 3mo ago
Science means the pursuit of knowledge. It doesn't mean "only believing proven things". If we're going to be rude, lets at least take the time to be right.
- cindyllm 3mo ago
  [dead]
trebaud 3mo ago
You dont seem to understand what proof means. Human brain is made of matter, matter can be arranged to make a thing that reproduces human brain properties. What's the confusion here? I say its unscientific because it places the human brain beyond the scope of what can be operated on. Not having the knowledge or tech yet to achieve that is irrelevant since we have an existence proof.
- TheOtherHobbes 3mo ago
  Even if we accept your premise, and not everyone does, the confusion is whether we're capable of creating an equivalent arrangement, even in principle, using alternative materials. That's not "irrelevant", it's fundamental.

JumpCrisscross 3mo ago

> Not believing that AGI is possible One can simultaneously believe AGI is possible, be only modestly sceptical that our current methods are likely to yield it in the near term and still find the religious ferocity enveloping its discussion silly. > saying that the human brain cognitive capabilities cannot be reproduced on other types of substrates is stupid at this point Straw man. Nobody argued this. The discussion is around how urgent it is to policy treat a future hypothetical.

ToValueFunfetti 3mo ago
Nobody argued anything. GP just dismissed it as religion without engaging with a word of the material. Parent is taking a stab at why. Not that I'm complaining. Cynicism is the failure mode I rely on HN for. It's the populism that's been getting to me.
- JumpCrisscross 3mo ago
  > GP just dismissed it as religion without engaging with a word of the material Fair enough. I didn’t see anything novel in the article. So treating it as a motif within the abovequoted “Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People” context is fair and a real argument. > Cynicism Cynicism isn’t the opposite of blind optimism. Nihilism is. I’m not seeing a rejection of the article as being baseless as cynical or nihilist. It’s just pointing out a cultural thread that doesn’t seem to be useful.
  - ToValueFunfetti 3mo ago
    I hate to get bogged down in semantics, but with the hope that one of the stronger top-level critiques makes it into the top slot here and this conversation gets buried: Cynicism is defined as >An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others. I'm not saying that cynicism is automatically wrong, just that I once could trust that, when HN is wrong, it is due to cynicism applied in excess.
    - 3mo ago

gilrain 3mo ago

> Not believing that AGI is possible is irrational and unscientific imo This is an objectively wrong opinion.

davemp 3mo ago

There is a vast gulf between theoretically possible and technologically feasible. If you can’t provide a realistic path to achieve something, you’re asking people to believe in science fiction. You could tell me that a rock’s molecules are comprised of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Blood is also entirely protons, neutrons, and electrons; so theoretically, one could rearrange stone into blood. But without an actual method to do so, it sounds like you’re telling me that you can squeeze blood from a stone. > the human brain exists, it is not made of magic, it can reproduced Yeah. It only takes 9 months and ~18 years of training… > But saying that the human brain cognitive capabilities cannot be reproduced on other types of substrates is stupid at this point Let’s be clear. Everyone is talking about silicon transistors here. That’s what we’ve got. Digital computers have real limits. Sensors and other sources of training data have real limitations. It’s not clear that we can organize them in a way to reproduce organic brains.

throw310822 3mo ago
Jesus... This morning while I was drinking coffee and staring at the screen (it's Saturday) an agent did the equivalent of days of my work, reading code, understanding, hypothesizing, comparing, using tools, writing scripts, launching compilers and running tests, identifying problems and proposing solutions, and more. Only someone who hasn't spent a second reflecting about what it means to think and to be intelligent can claim that we miss a realistic path to intelligence. It's so damn clueless and stubborn and confidently wrong that it annoys me immensely, so sorry for the rant.
- 27183 3mo ago
  > reading code, understanding, hypothesizing, comparing, ...identifying problems and proposing solutions, and more Except it did none of those things, really, because that's not how it works. This might help, it's a good writeup: https://www.0xkato.xyz/how-llms-actually-work/ https://www.0xkato.xyz/how-llms-actually-work/ We know how these machines work, it's not mysterious, there's nothing "extra" happening.
  - sudb 3mo ago

victorbjorklund 3mo ago

It’s also theoretically possible to travel almost at the speed of light. Doesn’t mean it’s rational to talk about it today as if imminent.