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

231–240 of 641 posts

Re: AI 2027

#231

Post by 758597464 »

robinhoode wrote: post #227
kypro wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, b…

> 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.

Tried, and succeeded in. In times where people held more power than today. Not sure what point you're trying to make here.

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

I agree that most of humanity has empathy for others — but it's been shown that the prevalence of psychopaths increases as you climb the leadership ladder.

Fear or hope are the responses of the passive. There are other routes to take.

Re: AI 2027

#232

Post by Aurornis »

Jun8 wrote: post #96

ACT post where Scott Alexander provides some additional info: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/introducing-ai-2027 . Manifold currently predicts 30%: https://manifold.markets/IsaacKing/ai-2027-reports-predictio...

> ACT post where Scott Alexander provides some additional info: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/introducing-ai-2027

The pattern where Scott Alexander puts forth a huge claim and then immediately hedges it backward is becoming a tiresome theme. The linguistic equivalent of putting claims into a superposition where the author is both owning it and distancing themselves from it at the same time, leaving the writing just ambiguous enough that anyone reading it 5 years from now couldn't pin down any claim as false because it was hedged in both directions. Schrödinger's prediction.

> Do we really think things will move this fast? Sort of no

> So maybe think of this as a vision of what an 80th percentile fast scenario looks like - not our precise median, but also not something we feel safe ruling out.

The talk of "not our precise median" and "Not something we feel safe ruling out" is an elaborate way of hedging that this isn't their actual prediction but, hey, anything can happen so here's a wild story! When the claims don't come true they can just point back to those hedges and say that it wasn't really their median prediction (which is conveniently not noted).

My prediction: The vague claims about AI becoming more powerful and useful will come true because, well, they're vague. Technology isn't about to reverse course and get worse.

The actual bold claims like humanity colonizing space in the late 2020s with the help of AI are where you start to realize how fanciful their actual predictions are. It's like they put a couple points of recent AI progress on a curve, assumed an exponential trajectory would continue forever, and extrapolated from that regression until AI was helping us colonize space in less than 5 years.

> Manifold currently predicts 30%:

Read the fine print. It only requires 30% of judges to vote YES for it to resolve to YES.

This is one of those bets where it's more about gaming the market than being right.

Re: AI 2027

#233

Post by alxjrvs »

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…

Racist fears of "replacement", mostly.

Re: AI 2027

#234

Post by stale2002 »

FairlyInvolved wrote: post #197
IshKebab wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure 5 years: AI coding assistants are a lot better than they are now, but still can't actually replace junior engineers (at least ones that aren't shit). AI fraud is rampant, with faked audio commonplace. Some companies try replacing call centres with AI, but it doesn't really work and everyone hates it. Tesla's robotaxi won't be available, but Waymo will be in most major US cities. 10 years: AI assistants are now u…

We are going to scale up GPT4 by a factor of ~10,000 and that will result in getting an accurate summary of your daily schedule?

Unfortunately with the way scaling laws are working out, each order of magnitude increase in computer only makes models a little better.

Meaning they nobody will even bother to 10,000X GPT4.

Re: AI 2027

#235

Post by bla3 »

> The AI Futures Project is a small research group forecasting the future of AI, funded by charitable donations and grants

Would be interested who's paying for those grants.

I'm guessing it's AI companies.

Re: AI 2027

#236

Post by hexator »

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.

Yes, it's extremely sinophobic and entirely too dismissive of China. It's pretty clear what the author's political leanings are, by what they mention and by what they do not.

Re: AI 2027

#237

Post by pama »

wkat4242 wrote: post #218
danpalmer wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These timelines always assume that things progress as quickly as they can be conceived of, likely because these timelines come from "Ideas Guys" whose involvement typically ends at that point. Orbital mechanics begs to disagree about a Mars colony in 10 years. Drug discovery has many steps that take time, even just the trials will take 5 years, let alone actually finding the drugs.

Didn't the covid significantly reduce trial times? I thought that was such a success that they continued on the same foot.

No it didn’t. At least not for new small molecule drugs. It did reduce times a bit for the first vaccines because there were many volunteers available, and it did allow some antibody drug candidates to be used before full testing was complete. The only approved small molecule drug for covid is paxlovid, with both components of its formulation tested on humans for the first time many years before covid. All the rest of the small molecule drugs are still in early parts of the pipeline or have been abandoned.

Re: AI 2027

#238

Post by _ea1k »

I think some of the takes in this piece are a bit melodramatic, but I'm glad to see someone breaking away from the "it's all a hype-bubble" nonsense that seems to be so pervasive here.

Re: AI 2027

#239

Post by narenm16 »

ivraatiems wrote: post #230
abraxas wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

i agree. it feels like scaling up these large models is such an inefficient route that seems to be warranting new ideas (test-time compute, etc).

we'll likely reach a point where it's infeasible for deep learning to completely encompass human-level reasoning, and we'll need neuroscience discoveries to continue progress. altman seems to be hyping up "bigger is better," not just for model parameters but openai's valuation.

Re: AI 2027

#240

Post by danpalmer »

wkat4242 wrote: post #218
danpalmer wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These timelines always assume that things progress as quickly as they can be conceived of, likely because these timelines come from "Ideas Guys" whose involvement typically ends at that point. Orbital mechanics begs to disagree about a Mars colony in 10 years. Drug discovery has many steps that take time, even just the trials will take 5 years, let alone actually finding the drugs.

Didn't the covid significantly reduce trial times? I thought that was such a success that they continued on the same foot.

The other reply has better info on covid specifically, but also consider that this refers to "immortality drugs". How long do we have to test those to conclude that they do in fact provide "immortality"?

Now sure, they don't actually mean immortality, and we don't need to test forever to conclude they extend life, but we probably do have to test for years to get good data on whether a generic life extension drug is effective, because you're testing against illness, old age, etc, things that take literally decades to kill.

That's not to mention that any drug like that will be met with intense skepticism and likely need to overcome far more scrutiny than normal (rather than the potentially less scrutiny that covid drugs might have managed).

Post reply on HN