Live data from Hacker News

The "AI 2027" Scenario: How realistic is it?

garymarcus.substack.com

41–50 of 242 posts

Re: The "AI 2027" Scenario: How realistic is it?

#41
post #25

If we have concerns about unregulated power of AI systems, not to worry - the US is set to ban regulations on “artificial intelligence systems or models” for ten years if the budget bill that just passed the house is enacted. Attempts at submitting it as a separate submission just get flagged - so I’ll link to it here. See pages 292-294: https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hr1/BILLS-119hr1rh.pdf

That is not true. It bans regulation at the state and local level, not at the federal level.

Re: The "AI 2027" Scenario: How realistic is it?

#42
post #9

I want to bet 10 million that this won’t happen if anyone wants to go against my position. Best bet ever. If i lose, i don’t have to pay anyways.

Some people do actually have end of the world bets out but you have to structure it differently. What you do is the person who thinks the world will end is paid cash right now, and then in N years when the world hasn't ended they have to pay back some multiple of the amount the original amount.

I still don't get how this is supposed to work. So let's say I give you a million dollars right now, with the expectation that I get $10M back in 10 years when the world hasn't ended. You obviously wanted the money up front because you're going to live it up while the world's still spinning. So how am I getting my payout after you've spent it all on hookers and blow?

Re: The "AI 2027" Scenario: How realistic is it?

#43
post #23
post #5

I'm skeptical. Where will the training data to go beyond human come from? Humans got to where they are from being embedded in the world. All of biological evolution from archaebacteria to humans was required to get to human. To go beyond human... how? How, without being embodied and trying things and learning? It's one thing to go where there are roads and another thing to go beyond that. I think a lot of the "foom"…

You can perfectly try things and learn without being embodied. The analogy to how humans learn only goes so far, it's myopic to think anything else is impossible. It's already happening. The situation today is any benchmark you come up with has a good chance of being saturated within the year. Benchmarks can be used directly to build series of exercises to learn from. And they do learn. Gradient descend doesn't care…

It’s myopic to think other things are not possible. Sure.

No immutable force of physics acts as a forcing function to continue with AI. That’s all a debatable political/conversation for the aggregate, as the aggregate outnumber tech people.

Computer science researchers are very much a minority and the biological mass of the other billions very capable of doing away with them.

LLMs are a known quantity and while people will make money off them, energy based models will simplify even further the electromagnetic geometry needed to eliminate programmer ecosystem of languages and editors, state, used to ship software. OS will boot strap from a model and scaffold out its internal state. We’ll save resources storing all the developer cruft of the trade and compute cycles running it. We’ll compress down to a purely data driven transform of machine state with a few variadic functions processing model inputs.

Source: have seen it in the lab.

So coding is going away because coding as a requirement was merely a stop gap until manufacturing caught up. The plan to achieve these things was set upon decades ago. It’s why politicians are letting it happen.

So we can do different things. That’s not the question. The question is how do we handle the transition? Violent collapse as ossified pols and self aggrandizing tech bros refuse to understand the reality for Main Street and that doesn’t sit well with human biology with kids to feed?

I for one will cover my ass by going with the flow of my immediate community and if that means get Luigi on the establishment or be considered dead weight and a traitor (say what you want about such social concepts, they are what the majority live by) well sorry tech bros but my biology means more to me than yours. Pew pew.

Yes you present a grammatically correct sentence with a consistent internal logic. You’re still one of billions and our country, you, let’s random unknowns die in the street every day. Humanity won’t bat an eye wiping out some coder bros.

Re: The "AI 2027" Scenario: How realistic is it?

#44
post #30

Its a shame that your standard futurologist always the most fancyful. Talks of exponentials unabated by physics or social problems. As soon as AI starts to "properly" affect the economy, it will cause huge unemployment. Most of the financial world is based on an economy with people spending cash. If they are unemployed, there is no cash. Financing works because banks "print" money, that is, they make up money and loa…

That's actually my favourite answer to the Fermi paradox: when AI and robot development becomes sufficiently advanced and concentrated in the hands of a few, then the economy will collapse completely as everyone will be out of jobs, leading ultimately to AIs and robots out of a job - they only matter if there are still people buying services from them. People then return to sustenance farming, with a highly reduced p…

> my favourite answer to the Fermi paradox

So, to be clear, you are saying you imagine the odds of any kind of intelligent life escaping that, or getting into that situation and ever evolving in a way where it can reach space again, or just not being interested in robots, or being interested on doing space research despite the robots, or anything else that would make it not apply are lower than 0.000000000001%?

EDIT: There was one "0" too many

Re: The "AI 2027" Scenario: How realistic is it?

#45
post #23
post #5

I'm skeptical. Where will the training data to go beyond human come from? Humans got to where they are from being embedded in the world. All of biological evolution from archaebacteria to humans was required to get to human. To go beyond human... how? How, without being embodied and trying things and learning? It's one thing to go where there are roads and another thing to go beyond that. I think a lot of the "foom"…

You can perfectly try things and learn without being embodied. The analogy to how humans learn only goes so far, it's myopic to think anything else is impossible. It's already happening. The situation today is any benchmark you come up with has a good chance of being saturated within the year. Benchmarks can be used directly to build series of exercises to learn from. And they do learn. Gradient descend doesn't care…

> it's myopic to think anything else is impossible. It's already happening.

Well, hey, I could be wrong. If I am, I just had a weird thought. Maybe that's our Fermi paradox answer.

If it's possible to reason ex nihilo to truth and reality, then reality and the universe are beyond a point superfluous. Maybe what happens out there is that intelligences go "foom," become superintelligences, and then no longer need to explore. They can rationally, from first principles, elucidate everything that could conceivably exist, especially once they have a complete model of physics. You don't need to go anywhere or look at anything because it's already implied by logic, math, and reason.

... and ... that's why I think this is wrong, and it's a fantasy. It fails some kind of absurdity test. If it is possible, then there's something very weird about existence, like we're in a simulation or something.

Re: The "AI 2027" Scenario: How realistic is it?

#46
post #25

If we have concerns about unregulated power of AI systems, not to worry - the US is set to ban regulations on “artificial intelligence systems or models” for ten years if the budget bill that just passed the house is enacted. Attempts at submitting it as a separate submission just get flagged - so I’ll link to it here. See pages 292-294: https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hr1/BILLS-119hr1rh.pdf

Right, because more regulation makes things so much better.

I’d rather have unrestricted AI than moated regulatory capture paid for by the largest existing players.

Re: The "AI 2027" Scenario: How realistic is it?

#47
post #25

If we have concerns about unregulated power of AI systems, not to worry - the US is set to ban regulations on “artificial intelligence systems or models” for ten years if the budget bill that just passed the house is enacted. Attempts at submitting it as a separate submission just get flagged - so I’ll link to it here. See pages 292-294: https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hr1/BILLS-119hr1rh.pdf

That is not true. It bans regulation at the state and local level, not at the federal level.

Unless the Feds are planning to regulate - which, for the next few years, seems unlikely - that's functionally the same.

Re: The "AI 2027" Scenario: How realistic is it?

#48
post #25

If we have concerns about unregulated power of AI systems, not to worry - the US is set to ban regulations on “artificial intelligence systems or models” for ten years if the budget bill that just passed the house is enacted. Attempts at submitting it as a separate submission just get flagged - so I’ll link to it here. See pages 292-294: https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hr1/BILLS-119hr1rh.pdf

That is not true. It bans regulation at the state and local level, not at the federal level.

So wild. The Republican party has hard-pivoted to a strong, centralized federal government and their base just came along for the ride.

Re: The "AI 2027" Scenario: How realistic is it?

#49
post #25

If we have concerns about unregulated power of AI systems, not to worry - the US is set to ban regulations on “artificial intelligence systems or models” for ten years if the budget bill that just passed the house is enacted. Attempts at submitting it as a separate submission just get flagged - so I’ll link to it here. See pages 292-294: https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hr1/BILLS-119hr1rh.pdf

[deleted]
Post reply on HN