Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI 2027

ai-2027.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 641 posts

Re: AI 2027

#131

Post by kridsdale3 »

AlphaAndOmega0 wrote: post #123
superconduct123 wrote: post #115

Why are the biggest AI predictions always made by people who aren't deep in the tech side of it? Or actually trying to use the models day-to-day...

Daniel Kokotajlo released the (excellent) 2021 forecast. He was then hired by OpenAI, and not at liberty to speak freely, until he quit in 2024. He's part of the team making this forecast. The others include: Eli Lifland, a superforecaster who is ranked first on RAND’s Forecasting initiative. You can read more about him and his forecasting team here. He cofounded and advises AI Digest and co-created TextAttack, an ad…

TBH, this kind of reads like the pedigrees of the former members of the OpenAI board. When the thing blew up, and people started to apply real scrutiny, it turned out that about half of them had no real experience in pretty much anything at all, except founding Foundations and instituting Institutes.

A lot of people (like the Effective Altruism cult) seem to have made a career out of selling their Sci-Fi content as policy advice.

Re: AI 2027

#132

Post by fire_lake »

> OpenBrain still keeps its human engineers on staff, because they have complementary skills needed to manage the teams of Agent-3 copies

Yeah, sure they do.

Everyone seems to think AI will take someone else’s jobs!

Re: AI 2027

#133

Post by pixl97 »

Trumpion wrote: post #118
archagon wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Small light computers become fast enough that autonomous slaughter it's become reality This is the real scary bit. I'm not convinced that AI will ever be good enough to think independently and create novel things without some serious human supervision, but none of that matters when applied to machines that are destructive by design and already have expectations of collateral damage. Slaughterbots are going to be th…

Why do you believe that? The lowest estimations of how much compute our brain represents was already achieved with the last chip from Nvidia (Blackwell). The newest gpu cluster from Google, Microsoft, Facebook, iax, and co have added so crazy much compute it's absurd.

>I'm not convinced that AI will ever be good enough to think independently a

and

>Why do you believe that?

What takes less effort, time to deploy, and cost? I mean there is at least some probability we kill ourselves off with dangerous semi-thinking war machines leading to theater scale wars to the point society falls apart and we don't have the expensive infrastructure to make AI as envisioned in the future.

With that said, I'm in the camp that we can create AGI as nature was able to with a random walk, we'll be able to reproduce it with intelligent design.

Re: AI 2027

#134

Post by layer8 »

ikerino wrote: post #4

Feels reasonable in the first few paragraphs, then quickly starts reading like science fiction. Would love to read a perspective examining "what is the slowest reasonable pace of development we could expect." This feels to me like the fastest (unreasonable) trajectory we could expect.

The slowest is a sudden and permanent plateau, where all attempts at progress turn out to result in serious downsides that make them unworkable.

Re: AI 2027

#135

Post by pixl97 »

ugh123 wrote: post #127
porphyra wrote: post #41

Seems very sinophobic. Deepseek and Manus have shown that China is legitimately an innovation powerhouse in AI but this article makes it sound like they will just keep falling behind without stealing.

Don't confuse innovation with optimisation.

Don't confuse designing the product with winning the market.

Re: AI 2027

#137

Post by layer8 »

amelius wrote: post #16
zvitiate wrote: post #15

There's a lot to potentially unpack here, but idk, the idea that humanity entering hell (extermination) or heaven (brain uploading; aging cure) is whether or not we listen to AI safety researchers for a few months makes me question whether it's really worth unpacking.

If we don't do it, someone else will.

I’m okay if someone else unpacks it.

Re: AI 2027

#138

Post by torginus »

superconduct123 wrote: post #115

Why are the biggest AI predictions always made by people who aren't deep in the tech side of it? Or actually trying to use the models day-to-day...

Because these people understand human psychology and how to play on fears (of doom, or missing out) and insecurities of people, and write compelling narratives while sounding smart.

They are great at selling stories - they sold the story of the crypto utopia, now switching their focus to AI.

This seems to be another appeal to enforce AI regulation in the name of 'AI safetyiism', which was made 2 years ago but the threats in it haven't really panned out.

For example an oft repeated argument is the dangerous ability of AI to design chemical and biological weapons, I wish some expert could weigh in on this, but I believe the ability to theorycraft pathogens effective in the real world is absolutely marginal - you need actual lab work and lots of physical experiments to confirm your theories.

Likewise the dangers of AI systems to exfiltrate themselves to multi-million dollar AI datacenter GPU systems everyone supposedly just has lying about, is ... not super realistc.

The ability of AIs to hack computer systems is much less theoretical - however as AIs will get better at black-hat hacking, they'll get better at white-hat hacking as well - as there's literally no difference between the two, other than intent.

And here in lies a crucial limitation of alignment and safetyism - sometimes there's no way to tell apart harmful and harmless actions, other than whether the person undertaking them means well.

Re: AI 2027

#139

Post by mullingitover »

These predictions are made without factoring in the trade version of the Pearl Harbor attack the US just initiated on its allies (and itself, by lobotomizing its own research base and decimating domestic corporate R&D efforts with the aforementioned trade war).

They're going to need to rewrite this from scratch in a quarter unless the GOP suddenly collapses and congress reasserts control over tariffs.

Re: AI 2027

#140

Post by flappyeagle »

kridsdale3 wrote: post #131
AlphaAndOmega0 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Daniel Kokotajlo released the (excellent) 2021 forecast. He was then hired by OpenAI, and not at liberty to speak freely, until he quit in 2024. He's part of the team making this forecast. The others include: Eli Lifland, a superforecaster who is ranked first on RAND’s Forecasting initiative. You can read more about him and his forecasting team here. He cofounded and advises AI Digest and co-created TextAttack, an ad…

TBH, this kind of reads like the pedigrees of the former members of the OpenAI board. When the thing blew up, and people started to apply real scrutiny, it turned out that about half of them had no real experience in pretty much anything at all, except founding Foundations and instituting Institutes. A lot of people (like the Effective Altruism cult) seem to have made a career out of selling their Sci-Fi content as p…

c'mon man, you don't believe that, let's have a little less disingenuousness on the internet
Post reply on HN