4 ms·

Genuinely, what makes people not believe in coming AGI? I read quite a lot on hackernews but never encounter a strong post/comment against it, apart from the

Genuinely, what makes people not believe in coming AGI? I read quite a lot on hackernews but never encounter a strong post/comment against it, apart from the „what is marketing“ discussion. Maybe people don’t bother because everyone is in their trenches, tough I don’t understand how people do not see the AGI coming. What kind of doom, if any, will befall is something different of course. I don’t want to believe there will be AGI in the next 5 years, but it sure is hard not to!

Yossarrian22 12d ago
What does AGI mean is probably the sticking point for most. I'm inclined to call it AGI if they can create something currently matching SOTA where there is no difference between training and inference time, i.e. it can continuously learn. Without the model collapsing.
jltsiren 12d ago
I think it's because people have different ideas of AGI. Some only expect general intelligence, while others also require weird speculative ideas, such as rapid self-improvement. Right now, what seems to be missing from general intelligence is mostly the ability to learn from experience and continue operating in a useful way well beyond context window size. That might already be technically feasible, but probably not in a cost-effective way.
afavour 12d ago
I don’t believe AI progress is a linear line that ends in “AGI”. I think the current way we create LLMs will be improved, and improved, and improved. But an LLM at its core is a predictive chain, not general intelligence.
- talon8635 12d ago
  Well, we can’t even clearly define consciousness, so who’s to say complex large-input statistical computation isn’t it? I have no idea. Anyone claiming to is hubristic.
  - afavour 12d ago
    “We can’t clearly define it so we should accept just about any definition of it” is certainly a position to take. The burden of proof exists, it’s not hubristic to require it.
    - talon8635 12d ago
      Yeah, on both parties. No one can prove that it is or is not large-input statistical analysis. Maybe you are suggesting that the burden is more on proving it IS. Even if that’s your case, and even if you’re right, that does not mean we can safely conclude it is not. It means we don’t know, and maybe one side of the argument is more likely… maybe. Again, hubris to have an unshakeable firm belief one way or the other. None of us are omnipotent.
cindyllm 12d ago
[dead]

Yossarrian22 12d ago

What does AGI mean is probably the sticking point for most. I'm inclined to call it AGI if they can create something currently matching SOTA where there is no difference between training and inference time, i.e. it can continuously learn. Without the model collapsing.

jltsiren 12d ago

I think it's because people have different ideas of AGI. Some only expect general intelligence, while others also require weird speculative ideas, such as rapid self-improvement. Right now, what seems to be missing from general intelligence is mostly the ability to learn from experience and continue operating in a useful way well beyond context window size. That might already be technically feasible, but probably not in a cost-effective way.

afavour 12d ago

I don’t believe AI progress is a linear line that ends in “AGI”. I think the current way we create LLMs will be improved, and improved, and improved. But an LLM at its core is a predictive chain, not general intelligence.

talon8635 12d ago
Well, we can’t even clearly define consciousness, so who’s to say complex large-input statistical computation isn’t it? I have no idea. Anyone claiming to is hubristic.
- afavour 12d ago
  “We can’t clearly define it so we should accept just about any definition of it” is certainly a position to take. The burden of proof exists, it’s not hubristic to require it.
  - talon8635 12d ago
    Yeah, on both parties. No one can prove that it is or is not large-input statistical analysis. Maybe you are suggesting that the burden is more on proving it IS. Even if that’s your case, and even if you’re right, that does not mean we can safely conclude it is not. It means we don’t know, and maybe one side of the argument is more likely… maybe. Again, hubris to have an unshakeable firm belief one way or the other. None of us are omnipotent.

cindyllm 12d ago

[dead]