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

221–230 of 641 posts

Re: AI 2027

#221

Post by turnsout »

Tossrock wrote: post #211
turnsout wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO they haven't even predicted mid-2025. > Coding AIs increasingly look like autonomous agents rather than mere assistants: taking instructions via Slack or Teams and making substantial code changes on their own, sometimes saving hours or even days. Yeah, we are so not there yet.

That is literally the pitch line for Devin. I recently spoke to the CTO of a small healthtech startup and he was very pro-Devin for small fixes and PRs, and thought he was getting his money worth. Claude Code is a little clunkier but gives better results, and it wouldn't take much effort to hook it up to a Slack interface.

Yeah, I get that there are startups trying to do it. But I work with Cursor quite a bit… there is no way I would trust an LLM code agent to take high-level direction and issue a PR on anything but the most trivial bug fix.

Re: AI 2027

#222

Post by torlok »

wkat4242 wrote: post #215
pydry wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>History says that actually when this happens, an entire generation is yeeted on to the streets History hasnt had to contend with a birth rate of 0.7-1.6. It's kind of interesting that the elite capitalist media (economist, bloomberg, forbes, etc) is projecting a future crisis of both not enough workers and not enough jobs simultaneously.

I don't really get the American preoccupation with birth rates. We're already way overpopulated for our planet and this is showing in environmental issues, housing cost, overcrowded cities etc. It's totally a great thing if we start plateauing our population and even reduce it a bit. And no we're not going extinct. It'll just cause some temporary issues like an ageing population that has to be cared for but those iss…

Don't try to reason with this population collapse nonsense. This has always been about racists fearing that "not enough" white westerners are being born, or about industrialists wanting infinite growth. For some prominent technocrats it's both.

Re: AI 2027

#223

Post by wkat4242 »

acje wrote: post #104

2028 human text is too ambiguous a data source to get to AGI. 2127 AGI figures out flying cars and fusion power.

I think it also really limits the AI to the context of human discourse which means it's hamstrung by our imagination, interests and knowledge. This is not where an AGI needs to go, it shouldn't copy and paste what we think. It should think on its own.

But I view LLMs not as a path to AGI on their own. I think they're really great at being text engines and for human interfacing but there will need to be other models for the actual thinking. Instead of having just one model (the LLM) doing everything, I think there will be a hive of different more specific purpose models and the LLM will be how they communicate with us. That solves so many problems that we currently have by using LLMs for things they were never meant to do.

Re: AI 2027

#224

Post by yoyohello13 »

wkat4242 wrote: post #215
pydry wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>History says that actually when this happens, an entire generation is yeeted on to the streets History hasnt had to contend with a birth rate of 0.7-1.6. It's kind of interesting that the elite capitalist media (economist, bloomberg, forbes, etc) is projecting a future crisis of both not enough workers and not enough jobs simultaneously.

I don't really get the American preoccupation with birth rates. We're already way overpopulated for our planet and this is showing in environmental issues, housing cost, overcrowded cities etc. It's totally a great thing if we start plateauing our population and even reduce it a bit. And no we're not going extinct. It'll just cause some temporary issues like an ageing population that has to be cared for but those iss…

I think it’s more of a “be fruitful and multiply” thing than an actual existential threat thing. You can see many of loudest people talking about it either have religious undertones or want more peasants to work the factories.

Demographic shift will certainly upset the status quo, but we will figure out how to deal with it.

Re: AI 2027

#225

Post by mattnewton »

wkat4242 wrote: post #215
pydry wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>History says that actually when this happens, an entire generation is yeeted on to the streets History hasnt had to contend with a birth rate of 0.7-1.6. It's kind of interesting that the elite capitalist media (economist, bloomberg, forbes, etc) is projecting a future crisis of both not enough workers and not enough jobs simultaneously.

I don't really get the American preoccupation with birth rates. We're already way overpopulated for our planet and this is showing in environmental issues, housing cost, overcrowded cities etc. It's totally a great thing if we start plateauing our population and even reduce it a bit. And no we're not going extinct. It'll just cause some temporary issues like an ageing population that has to be cared for but those iss…

I think a good part of it is fear of a black planet.

Re: AI 2027

#226

Post by wkat4242 »

kypro wrote: post #181
KaiserPro wrote: post #151

> AI has started to take jobs, but has also created new ones. Yeah nah, theres a key thing missing here, the number of jobs created needs to be more than the ones it's destroyed, and they need to be better paying and happen in time. History says that actually when this happens, an entire generation is yeeted on to the streets (see powered looms, Jacquard machine, steam powered machine tools) All of that cheap labour…

> and probably revolution I theorise that revolution would be near-impossible in post-AGI world. If people consider where power comes from it's relatively obvious that people will likely suffer and die on mass if we ever create AGI. Historically the general public have held the vast majority of power in society. 100+ years ago this would have been physical power – the state has to keep you happy or the public will co…

> I theorise that revolution would be near-impossible in post-AGI world. If people consider where power comes from it's relatively obvious that people will likely suffer and die on mass if we ever create AGI.

I agree but for a different reason. It's very hard to outsmart an entity with an IQ in the thousands and pervasive information gathering. For a revolution you need to coordinate. The Chinese know this very well and this is why they control communication so closely (and why they had Apple restrict AirDrop). But their security agencies are still beholden to people with average IQs and the inefficient communication between them.

An entity that can collect all this info on its own and have a huge IQ to spot patterns and not have to communicate it to convince other people in its organisation to take action, that will crush any fledgling rebellion. It will never be able to reach critical mass. We'll just be ants in an anthill and it will be the boot that crushes us when it feels like it.

Re: AI 2027

#227

Post by robinhoode »

kypro wrote: post #181
KaiserPro wrote: post #151

> AI has started to take jobs, but has also created new ones. Yeah nah, theres a key thing missing here, the number of jobs created needs to be more than the ones it's destroyed, and they need to be better paying and happen in time. History says that actually when this happens, an entire generation is yeeted on to the streets (see powered looms, Jacquard machine, steam powered machine tools) All of that cheap labour…

> and probably revolution I theorise that revolution would be near-impossible in post-AGI world. If people consider where power comes from it's relatively obvious that people will likely suffer and die on mass if we ever create AGI. Historically the general public have held the vast majority of power in society. 100+ years ago this would have been physical power – the state has to keep you happy or the public will co…

> In this world people become more like pests. They offer no economic value yet demand that AGI owners (wherever publicly or privately owned) share resources with them. If people revolted any AGI owner would be far better off just deploying a bioweapon to humanely kill the protestors rather than sharing resources with them.

This is a very doomer take. The threats are real, and I'm certain some people feel this way, but eliminating large swaths of humanity is something dicatorships have tried in the past.

Waking up every morning means believing there are others who will cooperate with you.

Most of humanity has empathy for others. I would prefer to have hope that we will make it through, rather than drown in fear.

Re: AI 2027

#228

Post by medvezhenok »

goatlover wrote: post #146
reducesuffering wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will people finally wake up that the AGI X-Risk people have been right and we’re rapidly approaching a really fucking big deal? This forum has been so behind for too long. Sama has been saying this a decade now: “Development of Superhuman machine intelligence is probably the greatest threat to the continued existence of humanity” 2015 https://blog.samaltman.com/machine-intelligence-part-1 Hinton, Ilya, Dario Amodei,…

> "Development of Superhuman machine intelligence is probably the greatest threat to the continued existence of humanity” If that's really true, why is there such a big push to rapidly improve AI? I'm guessing OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, Apple, Meta, Boston Dynamics don't really believe this. They believe AI will make them billions. What is OpenAI's definition of AGI? A model that makes $100 billion?

You can also have prisoner’s dilemma where no single actor is capable of stopping AI’s advance

Re: AI 2027

#229

Post by abraxas »

ivraatiems wrote: post #219

Though I think it is probably mostly science-fiction, this is one of the more chillingly thorough descriptions of potential AGI takeoff scenarios that I've seen. I think part of the problem is that the world you get if you go with the "Slowdown"/somewhat more aligned world is still pretty rough for humans: What's the point of our existence if we have no way to meaningfully contribute to our own world? I hope we're wr…

I think LLM or no LLM the emergence of intelligence appears to be closely related to the number of synapses in a network whether a biological or a digital one. If my hypothesis is roughly true it means we are several orders of magnitude away from AGI. At least the kind of AGI that can be embodied in a fully functional robot with the sensory apparatus that rivals the human body. In order to build circuits of this density it's likely to take decades. Most probably transistor based, silicon based substrate can't be pushed that far.

Re: AI 2027

#230

Post by ivraatiems »

abraxas wrote: post #229
ivraatiems wrote: post #219

Though I think it is probably mostly science-fiction, this is one of the more chillingly thorough descriptions of potential AGI takeoff scenarios that I've seen. I think part of the problem is that the world you get if you go with the "Slowdown"/somewhat more aligned world is still pretty rough for humans: What's the point of our existence if we have no way to meaningfully contribute to our own world? I hope we're wr…

I think LLM or no LLM the emergence of intelligence appears to be closely related to the number of synapses in a network whether a biological or a digital one. If my hypothesis is roughly true it means we are several orders of magnitude away from AGI. At least the kind of AGI that can be embodied in a fully functional robot with the sensory apparatus that rivals the human body. In order to build circuits of this dens…

I think there is a good chance you are roughly right. I also think that the "secret sauce" of sapience is probably not something that can be replicated easily with the technology we have now, like LLMs. They're missing contextual awareness and processing which is absolutely necessary for real reasoning.

But even so, solving that problem feels much more attainable than it used to be.

Post reply on HN