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

241–250 of 641 posts

Re: AI 2027

#241

Post by gmoot »

torlok wrote: post #222
wkat4242 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The welfare state is predicated on a pyramid-shaped population.

Also: people deride infinite growth, but growth is what is responsible for lifting large portions of the population out of poverty. If global markets were repriced tomorrow to expect no future growth, economies would collapse.

There may be a way to accept low or no growth without economic collapse, but if there is no one has figured it out yet. That's nothing to be cavalier about.

Re: AI 2027

#242

Post by ddp26 »

moab wrote: post #13

> "OpenBrain (the leading US AI project) builds AI agents that are good enough to dramatically accelerate their research. The humans, who up until very recently had been the best AI researchers on the planet, sit back and watch the AIs do their jobs, making better and better AI systems." I'm not sure what gives the authors the confidence to predict such statements. Wishful thinking? Worst-case paranoia? I agree that…

Check out the Timelines Forecast under "research". They model this very carefully.

(They could be wrong, but this isn't a guess, it's a well-researched forecast.)

Re: AI 2027

#243

Post by leonidasv »

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...

> Do we really think things will move this fast? Sort of no - between the beginning of the project last summer and the present, Daniel’s median for the intelligence explosion shifted from 2027 to 2028. We keep the scenario centered around 2027 because it’s still his modal prediction (and because it would be annoying to change). Other members of the team (including me) have medians later in the 2020s or early 2030s, and also think automation will progress more slowly. 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.

Important disclaimer that's lacking in OP's link.

Re: AI 2027

#244

Post by ddp26 »

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 forecasts under "Research" are distributions, so you can compare the 10th percentile vs 90th percentile.

Their research is consistent with a similar story unfolding over 8-10 years instead of 2.

Re: AI 2027

#246

Post by ddp26 »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #172

But, I think this piece falls into a misconception about AI models as singular entities. There will be many instances of any AI model and each instance can be opposed to other instances. So, it’s not that “an AI” becomes super intelligent, what we actually seem to have is an ecosystem of blended human and artificial intelligences (including corporations!); this constitutes a distributed cognitive ecology of superinte…

Check out the sidebar - they expect tens of thousands of copies of their agents collaborating.

I do agree they don't fully explore the implications. But they do consider things like coordination amongst many agents.

Re: AI 2027

#247

Post by ddp26 »

atemerev wrote: post #55

What is this, some OpenAI employee fan fiction? Did Sam himself write this? OpenAI models are not even SOTA, except that new-ish style transfer / illustration thing that made all us living in Ghibli world for a few days. R1 is _better_ than o1, and open-weights. GPT-4.5 is disappointing, except for a few narrow areas where it excels. DeepResearch is impressive though, but the moat is in tight web search / Google Scho…

The story isn't about OpenAI, they say the company could be Xai, Anthropic, Google, or another.

Re: AI 2027

#248

Post by ddp26 »

A lot of commenters here are reacting only to the narrative, and not the Research pieces linked at the top.

There is some very careful thinking there, and I encourage people to engage with the arguments there rather than the stylized narrative derived from it.

Re: AI 2027

#249

Post by photonthug »

layer8 wrote: post #134
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.

Even if this were true, it's not quite the end of the story is it? The hype itself creates lots of compute and to some extent the power needed to feed that compute, even if approximately zero of the hype pans out. So an interesting question becomes.. what happens with all the excess? Sure it probably gets gobbled up in crypto ponzi schemes, but I guess we can try to be optimistic. IDK, maybe we get to solve cancer and climate change anyway, not with fancy new AGI, but merely with some new ability to cheaply crunch numbers for boring old school ODEs.

Re: AI 2027

#250

Post by UltraSane »

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…

Why can't the compute be remote from the robot? That is a major advantage of human technology over biology.
Post reply on HN