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

AI 2040: Plan A

ai-2040.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 567 posts

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#41

Post by 2001zhaozhao »

jawiggins wrote: post #31

Did anyone else catch the logical inconsistency between Plan C and A? Plan C: > "... fewer and fewer humans are needed to conduct AI R&D, meaning that covert projects are easier and easier to pull off without detection." Plan A: > "... training AIs requires large numbers of AI chips. Most AI chips are in giant datacenters.50 AI datacenters are typically big enough to be visible from space, and power-hungry enough to…

In Plan C the government essentially misses the opportunity to implement the multinational deal while the threat of covert projects is still low (fewer latest-gen chips unaccounted by tracking measures, worse models/algorithms to use for RSI). That's why it says the probability of a deal is lower and lower each month rather than outright zero.

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#43

Post by hollerith »

rayiner wrote: post #39
reducesuffering wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we’d be allowing a gap to open up that would make the difference between colonial europe and colonized Asia/Africa look trivial. An easy choice to make if the alternative is everyone dying instead.

The alternative isn’t “everyone dying.” It’s us holding all the cards.

Why? Is human extinction not permitted by the laws of physics?

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#44

Post by AnimalMuppet »

reducesuffering wrote: post #35
rayiner wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, of course not. That would be an insane trust fall. Even relatively small advances in technology give a country world dominating power. Fun fact: India was militarily superior to Britain in the 1600s—a gunpowder empire with a million soldiers—but was taken over by it in the 1700s. Britain’s edge was small: lighter, more maneuverable cannons, standardized ammunition, better military and political organization. Not…

> we’d be allowing a gap to open up that would make the difference between colonial europe and colonized Asia/Africa look trivial. An easy choice to make if the alternative is everyone dying instead.

But is it? Is there any realistic world where we need ASI for human survival?

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#45

Post by PaulHoule »

... and in the meantime people are looking at their AI bills and realizing tokens aren't worth what they cost. The frontier is getting the cost down, not getting intelligence up. In a cage match between this guy and "Ed", Ed wins.

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#46

Post by rayiner »

hollerith wrote: post #43
rayiner wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The alternative isn’t “everyone dying.” It’s us holding all the cards.

Why? Is human extinction not permitted by the laws of physics?

That’s a possibility, but not the only one. The two most realistic ones are: we race ahead and maintain our status, or we slow down and open ourselves up to colonization.

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#47

Post by Cyclical »

kennywinker wrote: post #23

It seems to me we’re already at the top of the S curve, not at the toe of an exponential curve. At least with LLMs. Better training data will make small improvements, better architecture will make it less compute intensive, and all these “hyper-scale” data centers will make it cheap and ubiquitous. But none of that is it getting exponentially more intelligent.

What leads you to believe that?

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#48

Post by reasonableklout »

ipnon wrote: post #12

Kind of feels like fusion power at this point, always just around the corner.

What predictions about the technology are the authors making that you do not believe?

There is plenty falsifiable in this in ai-2027.com, and they have not gotten everything right. But some things they have: for example, the Pentagon has already invoked export controls to restrict the deployment of a frontier model. This level of government oversight wasn't predicted until 2027 in the original scenario.

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#49

Post by kennywinker »

Cyclical wrote: post #47
kennywinker wrote: post #23

It seems to me we’re already at the top of the S curve, not at the toe of an exponential curve. At least with LLMs. Better training data will make small improvements, better architecture will make it less compute intensive, and all these “hyper-scale” data centers will make it cheap and ubiquitous. But none of that is it getting exponentially more intelligent.

What leads you to believe that?

Is chatgpt 5.6 that much smarter than chatgpt 5.0?

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#50

Post by tim333 »

joshstrange wrote: post #6

I'm sure some people will have issue with my phrasing but, honest question: Are there examples of where we have collective decided not to pursue knowledge? Successfully? I guess nuclear weapons might be the best example though research doesn't seem have to actually "stopped" as much as gone underground and we still have country trying to climb that ladder. But I don't know how relevant that is to LLMs/AI. It almost f…

The 1972 Biological Weapons Convention? Probably partly successful.
Post reply on HN