81–90 of 1001 posts
"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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Arguing about the definitions of words is rarely useful.
How can we discuss if we are talking about different things?
>What takes the long amount of time and the way to think about it is that it’s a march of nines. Every single nine is a constant amount of work. Every single nine is the same amount of work. When you get a demo and something works 90% of the time, that’s just the first nine. Then you need the second nine, a third nine, a fourth nine, a fifth nine. While I was at Tesla for five years or so, we went through maybe three…
I think it's a shame that a 146 minute podcast released ~55 minutes ago has so much discussion. Everybody here is clearly just reacting to the title with their own biases. I know it's against the guidelines to discuss the state of a thread, but I really wish we could have thoughtful conversations about the content of links instead of title reactions.
"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 don’t even know what AGI is, and neither does anyone else as far as I can tell. In the parts of the video I watched, he cites several things missing which all have to do with autonomy: continual automated updates of internal state, fully autonomous agentic behavior, etc. 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…
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.
The best part of this is I watched Sam Altman say he really thinks fusion is a short period of time away in response to a question about energy consumption a couple years ago. That was the moment I knew he's a quack.
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.
Arguing about the definitions of words is rarely useful.
If nothing else it's been a sci-fi topic for more than a century. There's connotations, cultural baggage, and expectations from the general population about what AI is and what it's capable of, most of which isn't possible or applicable to the current crop of "AI" tools.
You can't just change the meaning of a word overnight and toss all that history away, which is why it comes across as an intentionally dishonest choice in the name of profits.
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.