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

AGI Is Still 30 Years Away – Ege Erdil and Tamay Besiroglu

dwarkesh.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 394 posts

Re: AGI Is Still 30 Years Away – Ege Erdil and Tamay Besiroglu

#221

Post by CooCooCaCha »

dmwilcox wrote: post #213

I've been saying this for a decade already but I guess it is worth saying here. I'm not afraid AI or a hammer is going to become intelligent (or jump up and hit me in the head either). It is science fiction to think that a system like a computer can behave at all like a brain. Computers are incredibly rigid systems with only the limited variance we permit. "Software" is flexible in comparison to creating dedicated ci…

This is why I think philosophy has become another form of semi-religious kookery. You haven't provided any actual proof or logical reason for why a computer couldn't be intelligent. If randomness is required then sample randomness from the real world.

It's clear that your argument is based on feels and you're using philosophy to make it sound more legitimate.

Re: AGI Is Still 30 Years Away – Ege Erdil and Tamay Besiroglu

#222

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

thomasahle wrote: post #90
__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the hell is general intelligence anyway? People seem to think it means human-like intelligence, but I can't imagine we have any good reason to believe that our kinds of intelligence constitute all possible kinds of intelligence--which, from the words, must be what "general" intelligence means. It seems like even if it's possible to achieve GI, artificial or otherwise, you'd never be able to know for sure that th…

> What the hell is general intelligence anyway? OpenAI used to define it as "a highly autonomous system that outperforms humans at most economically valuable work." Now they used a Level 1-5 scale: https://briansolis.com/2024/08/ainsights-openai-defines-five... So we can say AGI is "AI that can do the work of Organizations": > These “Organizations” can manage and execute all functions of a business, surpassing tradit…

There's nothing general about AI-as-CEO.

That's the opposite of generality. It may well be the opposite of intelligence.

An intelligent system/individual reliably and efficiently produces competent, desirable, novel outcomes in some domain, avoiding failures that are incompetent, non-novel, and self-harming.

Traditional computing is very good at this for a tiny range of problems. You get efficient, very fast, accurate, repeatable automation for a certain small set of operation types. You don't get invention or novelty.

AGI will scale this reliably across all domains - business, law, politics, the arts, philosophy, economics, all kinds of engineering, human relationships. And others. With novelty.

LLMs are clearly a long way from this. They're unreliable, they're not good at novelty, and a lot of what they do isn't desirable.

They're barely in sight of human levels of achievement - not a high bar.

The current state of LLMs tells us more about how little we expect from human intelligence than about what AGI could be capable of.

Re: AGI Is Still 30 Years Away – Ege Erdil and Tamay Besiroglu

#223

Post by 827a »

dicroce wrote: post #9

Doesn't even matter. The capabilities of the AI that's out NOW will take a decade or more to digest.

Agreed. A hot take I have is that I think AI is over-hyped in its long-term capabilities, but under-hyped in its short-term ones. We're at the point today or in the next twelve months where all the frontier labs could stop investing any money into research, they'd still see revenue growth via usage of what they've built, and humanity will still be significantly more productive every year, year-over-year, for quite a bit, because of it.

The real driver of productivity growth from AI systems over the next few years isn't going to be model advancements; it'll be the more traditional software engineering, electrical engineering, robotics, etc systems that get built around the models. Phrased another way: If you're an AI researcher thinking you're safe but the software engineers are going to lose their jobs, I'd bet every dollar on reality being the reverse of that.

Re: AGI Is Still 30 Years Away – Ege Erdil and Tamay Besiroglu

#224

Post by stevenwoo »

mschuster91 wrote: post #218
adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

note that those are kilocalories, and that is ignoring the calories needed for the circulatory and immune systems which are somewhat necessary for proper function. Using 2000 cal per day/10 hours of thinking gives a consumption of ~200W

> Using 2000 cal per day/10 hours of thinking gives a consumption of ~200W So, about a tenth or less of a single server packed to the top with GPUs.

That is true but there’s 3.7 billion years of evolutionary “design” to make self replicating, self fueling animals to use that brain. There’s no AI within foreseeable future capable of that. One might look at brains as a side effect of evolution of the self replicating, self fueling bits.

Re: AGI Is Still 30 Years Away – Ege Erdil and Tamay Besiroglu

#225

Post by lexarflash8g »

fusionadvocate wrote: post #15

Can someone throw some light on this Dwarkesh character? He landed a Zucc podcast pretty early on... how connected is he? Is he an industry plant?

https://archive.ph/IWjYP

He was covered on the Economist recently -- I haven't heard of him til now so imagine its not just AI-slop content.

Re: AGI Is Still 30 Years Away – Ege Erdil and Tamay Besiroglu

#226

Post by paulryanrogers »

mschuster91 wrote: post #218
adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

note that those are kilocalories, and that is ignoring the calories needed for the circulatory and immune systems which are somewhat necessary for proper function. Using 2000 cal per day/10 hours of thinking gives a consumption of ~200W

> Using 2000 cal per day/10 hours of thinking gives a consumption of ~200W So, about a tenth or less of a single server packed to the top with GPUs.

Are the wattage ratings of GPUs how many they need continuously or over hours?

Re: AGI Is Still 30 Years Away – Ege Erdil and Tamay Besiroglu

#227

Post by throwaway150 »

dmwilcox wrote: post #213

I've been saying this for a decade already but I guess it is worth saying here. I'm not afraid AI or a hammer is going to become intelligent (or jump up and hit me in the head either). It is science fiction to think that a system like a computer can behave at all like a brain. Computers are incredibly rigid systems with only the limited variance we permit. "Software" is flexible in comparison to creating dedicated ci…

> And from my brief experience on this planet I don't believe that premise.

A lot of things that humans believed were true due to their brief experience on this planet ended up being false: earth is the center of the universe, heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones, time ticked the same everywhere, species are fixed and unchanging.

So what your brief experience on this planet makes you believe has no bearing on what is correct. It might very well be that our mind can be reduced to a probabilistic and deterministic system. It might also be that our mind is a non-deterministic system that can be modeled in a computer.

Re: AGI Is Still 30 Years Away – Ege Erdil and Tamay Besiroglu

#229

Post by colesantiago »

This "AGI" definition is extremely loose depending on who you talk to. Ask "what does AGI mean to you" and sometimes the answer is:

1. Millions of layoffs across industries due to AI with some form of questionable UBI (not sure if this works)

2. 100BN in profits. (Microsoft / OpenAI definition)

3. Abundance in slopware. (VC's definition)

4. Raise more money to reach AGI / ASI.

5. Any job that a human can do which is economically significant.

6. Safe AI (Researchers definition).

7. All the above that AI could possibly do better.

I am sure there must be a industry aligned and concrete definition that everyone can agree on rather the goal post moving definitions.

Re: AGI Is Still 30 Years Away – Ege Erdil and Tamay Besiroglu

#230

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #226
mschuster91 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Using 2000 cal per day/10 hours of thinking gives a consumption of ~200W So, about a tenth or less of a single server packed to the top with GPUs.

Are the wattage ratings of GPUs how many they need continuously or over hours?

Watts are a unit of power which is energy per time. specifically, 1 Watt is 1 joule per second
Post reply on HN