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

501–510 of 567 posts

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#501

Post by lilerjee »

A fiction? almost all is pure fantasy or imagination.

What are your real purposes?

No any definition for many important concepts.

No any logic for the concepts.

What is AI?

What are AI companies?

What is "smarter than humans"? All human?

How to check "smarter than humans"?

"building smarter-than-human AI systems within the next 1 to 10 years.", nonsense, AI can store or handle with all details from reality? Even all data centers in the world cannot store all details of the influenza virus.

No concepts and logic, just a fiction, joke, or marketing article.

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#502

Post by suddenlybananas »

themgt wrote: post #462
notahacker wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't seem at all strange to me that a chatbot trained by true believers in an AI singularity and the importance of safety guardrails will give more satisfying answers to true believers in an AI singularity and the importance of safety guardrails than talking to humans who might ask questions they're not prepared to answer (or might say nasty sceptical things or just not seem interested) As for "updating priors"…

OK. Anyhow ... if there's a cognitive task you are personally superior to Fable at, let us know.

Planning

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#503

Post by somebodythere »

bwanab wrote: post #456
taurath wrote: post #267

This is religious fervor folks, as AI 2027 was. I grew up in evangelical christianity, and to them the end of the world is just around the corner, the same way it has been since I was a small child and likely will be when we are all gone. This isn't science. This isn't hypothesis experiment record results. This is very expensive astrology, shiny rock collecting, ritualistic meaning-making and self-justification. Yall…

The other thing about this article is that it contains falsifiable claims that are, well, false. Consider the following direct quote: "The 2028 election cycle is heated, as usual. AI is the biggest topic." No poll of the American public has AI as one of the top concerns except in polls where the question is specifically about AI. The general polls show topics like healthcare costs, inflation/affordability, government…

This prediction can't be scored until the 2028 election cycle.

You may think it's very unlikely the prediction will have turned out to be correct by the 2028 election cycle, but that is not the same thing as the prediction being scorable as false today.

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#504

Post by JumpCrisscross »

edouard-harris wrote: post #332
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How is commoditisation of models incompatible with AGI? A recursively self-improving AI has strong first-mover effects. That isn’t fundamentally incompatible with commoditisation if there is literally only one path to super-intelligence and you can have AIs at different rings on that ladder co-existing. (Not technically commoditised at that point. There are still different rings. But close enough.) But the existenc…

> But the existence of commoditised AI implies model selection isn’t a huge deal, which in turn implies the models are about the same, which strongly implies there is no recursive self-improvement. Depending on your definition, you may still have AGI. But you don’t have superintelligence. This is only true at a given AI capability level, no? e.g., if AI at the GLM-5.2 level is commoditized, all that suggests is that…

> if you mean observing commoditization implies there is no existing, ambient superintelligence at the moment of that observation, then I don't disagree

This is a better way to put it, thank you. More precisely, I'd say commoditisation implies there is no existing self-improving AI on the market.

The moment someone gets exponential self-improvement, model fungibility breaks and the first mover wins. This is the Bostrom singularity the rationalists flip out about.

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#505

Post by azan_ »

zdragnar wrote: post #479
0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Fable 5 doesn't represent anything new, other than scale and some refinement techniques, over the original LLMs. Yet it is generating billions in revenue which Eliza did not. Perhaps all we need is scale and some refinement techniques to eat a big fraction of the economy. If unimpressive inputs lead to impressive outputs, that should make you more worried, not less.

The commercial viability is orthogonal to whether it achieves AGI, which is effectively what "reproducing the human brain" amounts to in this discussion.

What's your definition of AGI?

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#506

Post by magicalist »

alex_young wrote: post #259
magicalist wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW the burning of the library of Alexandria, and, indeed, its status as "the only collection of written knowledge" are myths.

Did it not burn? Was it not the most extensive library of human writing at that time? Please help us all understand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria

> Did it not burn?

Part of it did!

> Was it not the most extensive library of human writing at that time?

No.

More importantly, the original assertion:

> the world certainly turned its back on the only collection of written knowledge and let it turn to ash

is definitely not true.

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#507

Post by Grombobulous »

wavemode wrote: post #364
Grombobulous wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody’s even solved a self-driving vehicles yet, not in in the sort of “they took over everything and put every uber and truck driver out of business” kind of way. Maybe they will soon but it’s massively far behind the kind of timeframe AI 2027 would have implied.

I actually think self-driving is one of the easier paths of development. The main thing holding it back right now is regulation and liability. But, if you could wave a wand and eliminate all legal and liability hurdles to self-driving, automobile deaths would plummet. They're way safer than the average human driver. The technology is definitely capable, our society just isn't ready for it.

I disagree. It has not been figured out enough to take humans out of the equation from a functional standpoint, not just a regulatory one.

This past 4th of July weekend a Waymo ran over an actively burning firework in a low speed scenario, the kind of thing a 95 year old driver would have avoided.

https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/waymo-car-travels...

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#508

Post by stalfie »

iugtmkbdfil834 wrote: post #474
stalfie wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one imagined LLMs in their current format, it was simply a result of discovering that scaling compute and tokens produced better and better results with the Transformer architecture. The inventors of the Transformer architecture were working on better translation, and probably did not imagine that their architecture would lead to modern LLMs. Imagining something in advance is not necessary at all for scientific ad…

That is simply not accurate. There are examples of scifi novels, novellas and other media that dealt with it. We can argue over whether it was that exact format, implementation and so on, but that 'shape' ( to use a common llm term ) of technological advances was very much explored.

I was referring more to the fact that no one predicted that next token predicting Transformers would go so far. Not about "AI" in general.

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#509

Post by stalfie »

27183 wrote: post #389
stalfie wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one imagined LLMs in their current format, it was simply a result of discovering that scaling compute and tokens produced better and better results with the Transformer architecture. The inventors of the Transformer architecture were working on better translation, and probably did not imagine that their architecture would lead to modern LLMs. Imagining something in advance is not necessary at all for scientific ad…

> Imagining something in advance is not necessary at all for scientific advancement. This is particularily true in AI, and no one expects to imagine what superintelligence is until after it is created. Then why does anyone expect to create it? I'll take a stab at an answer: they think an LLM is some kind of "incremental improvement" and therefore a step along the inevitable path to discovering AI. But that seems delu…

No one knows how LLMs work. We know how the architecture works, but almost nothing about why. Saying "statistical next token prediction" tells you about as much about LLMs as saying "action potential thresholds" tells you about the brain. A true fact that explains very little.

And I'm sorry, but you're not up to date about interpretability literature, or for that matter philosophical discourse, if you think you have to be delusional to question whether LLMs are "intelligent", whatever you define that word to mean. The [latest publication](https://www.anthropic.com/research/global-workspace) from anthropics interpretability team purports that they see structures in Claude akin to those we think are associated with human consciousnesses experience in the brain. Are you going to dismiss the whole team as not being of "sound mind"?

Intelligence is a word with a somewhat unclear meaning to begin with, but you have move the goalposts pretty damn far to exclude LLMs at this point. They are certainly still lacking in some regards, but whether that disqualifies them for intelligence is very much a matter of debate.

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#510

Post by nadir_ishiguro »

stalfie wrote: post #509
27183 wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Imagining something in advance is not necessary at all for scientific advancement. This is particularily true in AI, and no one expects to imagine what superintelligence is until after it is created. Then why does anyone expect to create it? I'll take a stab at an answer: they think an LLM is some kind of "incremental improvement" and therefore a step along the inevitable path to discovering AI. But that seems delu…

No one knows how LLMs work. We know how the architecture works, but almost nothing about why. Saying "statistical next token prediction" tells you about as much about LLMs as saying "action potential thresholds" tells you about the brain. A true fact that explains very little. And I'm sorry, but you're not up to date about interpretability literature, or for that matter philosophical discourse, if you think you have…

"And I'm sorry, but you're not up to date about interpretability literature, or for that matter philosophical discourse,"

I see no citations referring to the current philsophical discourse, unless you mean to imply anthropic's paid people are to be considered to be part of that.

That they "see structures in Claude akin to those we think are associated with human consciousnesses experience in the brain" is if anything discrediting.

Post reply on HN