51–60 of 1001 posts
Good because we have no framework whatsoever enabled for if it is legal or ethical to turn it off. Is that murder? I think so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> AGI is already here. cause elon musk says FSD is coming in 2017?
Because we already have artificial (man-made) general (contrast with domain specific) intelligence (algorithmic problem solvers). A.G.I. If ChatGPT is not AGI, somebody has moved goalposts.
And self sustained nuclear fusion is 20 years away, perpetually. On which evidence can he affirm a timeline for AGI when we can barely define intelligence?
stop repeating that. first, it isn't true that intelligence is barely defined. https://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3639 second a definition is obviously not a prerequisite as evidenced by natural selection
And self sustained nuclear fusion is 20 years away, perpetually. On which evidence can he affirm a timeline for AGI when we can barely define intelligence?
And a program that can write, sound and paint like a human was 20 years away perpetually as well, until it wasn't.
Humans have since adapted to identify content differences and assign lower economic value to content created by programs, i.e. the humans being "impersonated" and "fooled" are themselves evolving in response to imitation.
Am I dating myself by thinking Kurzweil is still relevant? 2029: Human-level AI 2045: The Singularity - machine intelligence 1 billion times more powerful than all human intelligence Based on exponential growth in computing. He predicts we'll merge with AI to transcend biological limits. His track record is mixed, but 2029 looks more credible post-GPT-5. The 2045 claim remains highly speculative.
Hegel thought history ended with the Prussian state, Fukuyama thought it ended in liberal America, Paul thought judgement day was so close you need not bother to marry, the singularity always comes around when the singularians get old. Funny how that works
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> AGI is already here. cause elon musk says FSD is coming in 2017?
Because we already have artificial (man-made) general (contrast with domain specific) intelligence (algorithmic problem solvers). A.G.I. If ChatGPT is not AGI, somebody has moved goalposts.
Are researchers scared to just come out and say it because they'll be labeled as wrong if the extreme tail case happens?
No, it’s because of money and the hype cycle.
I mean sure I now "control" the AI, but I still think these no AGI for 2 decades claims are a bit rough.
That includes anyone reading this message long after the lives of those reading it on its post date have ended.
Which of course raises the interesting question of how I can make good on this bet.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim." - Edsger Dijkstra The debate about AGI is interesting from a philosophical perspective, but from a practical perspective AI doesn't need to get anywhere close to AGI to turn the world upside down.
I feel like GPT 3 was AGI, personally. It crossed some threshold that was both real and magical, and future improvements are relying on that basic set of features at their core. Can we confidently say this is not a form of general intelligence? Just because it’s more a Chinese Room than a fully autonomous robot? We can keep moving the goalposts indefinitely, but machine intelligence will never exactly match that of humans.
Whenever someone brings up "AI", I tell them AI is not real AI. Machine learning is a more apt buzzword. And real AI is probably like fusion. Its always 10 years away.
Machine learning as a descriptive phrase has stopped being relevant. It implies the discovery of information in a training set. The pre-training of an LLM is most definitely machine learning. But what people are excited and interested in is the use of this learned data in generative AI. “Machine learning” doesn’t capture that aspect.