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

AGI is not possible even in 10 years

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 106 posts

Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years

#11

Post by lagniappe »

charlie-83 wrote: post #7

It feels like any time scale on AGI is basically just made up. Since no one has any idea of how to get there, how could you possibly estimate how long it will take? We could stumble on some secret technique that unlocks AGI tomorrow or it could be literally impossible. You might as well ask how long until humans can cast magic spells.

When you see these claims it's important to frame the assertion contextually as in the transformer generation, AGI is 10+ years away. This does not, however, account for the next architecture that will do more with less.

Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years

#12

Post by rvz »

"AGI" was hijacked to mean something else and was turned into a scam.

What it "really means" is more mass layoffs to power AI infrastructure for that to power so-called "AI agents" to achieve a 10% increase in global unemployment in the next 5 years.

From the "benefit of humanity", then to the entire destruction of knowledge workers and now to the tax payer even if it costs another $10T to bailout the industry from staggeringly giant costs to run all of it.

Once again, AGI is now nothing but a grift. The crash will be a spectacle for the ages.

Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years

#13

Post by kubb »

okaleniuk wrote: post #4

The most interesting thing in this whole picture is not AGI, it's how the collective intelligence works. CEOs claim the AGI is near because that's how they manipulate the public. But the public knows that it's only a manipulation. So how come the manipulation is still possible?

Bots and paid trolls online pushing a narrative.

With a whole manual of rhetorical tactics.

Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years

#14

Post by diego_moita »

I think the best take in AGI is Edsger Dijkstra's:

    “The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.”
I am not interested in computers that have their own intelligence but I do want computers that increase my own intelligence.

Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years

#15

Post by [deleted] »

danslo wrote: post #3

This is slop right? >This isn’t a minor gap; it’s a fundamental limitation. >His timeline? At least a decade, probably much longer. >What does that mean? Simply throwing more computing power and data at current models isn’t working anymore. >His timeline for truly useful agents? About ten years.

[deleted]

Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years

#17

Post by charlie-83 »

RA_Fisher wrote: post #5

The paid models are already smarter than the vast majority of people.

If this is true then almost all of the jobs in the world would already be replaced by AI. Sure, the model might be better than most people at lots of things but there are still tasks that human children find easy and AI struggles with. I wouldn't call being better at something than humans being "smarter" than them; if you do, calculators must be smarter than humans since they have been better at adding up numbers than us for a long time.

Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years

#19

Post by rowanseymour »

RA_Fisher wrote: post #5

The paid models are already smarter than the vast majority of people.

At analyzing and reproducing language.. words, code etc sure because at their core they are still statistical models of language. But there seems to be growing consensus that intelligence requires modeling more than words.

Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years

#20

Post by blkhawk »

okaleniuk wrote: post #4

The most interesting thing in this whole picture is not AGI, it's how the collective intelligence works. CEOs claim the AGI is near because that's how they manipulate the public. But the public knows that it's only a manipulation. So how come the manipulation is still possible?

because people hedge their bets almost always. basically how likely something is vs costs vs what everybody else is doing vs how you are personally affected.

So in case of the current AI there are several scenarios where you have to react to it. For example as a CEO of a company that would benefit from AI you need to demonstrate you are doing something or you get attacked for not doing enough.

As a CEO of an AI producing company you have almost no idea if the stuff you working on will be the thing that say makes hallucination-free LLMs, allows for cheap long term context integration or even "solve AGI". you have to pretend that you are just about to do the latter tho.

Post reply on HN