As a 20 something this makes me so excited to be alive.
Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI
11–20 of 115 posts
Re: Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI
#12Maybe I'm too pessimistic, but I doubt we will have AGI by even 2100. I define AGI as the ability for an intelligence that is not human to do anything any human has ever done or will do with technology that does not include itself* (AGI).
* It also goes without saying that by this definition I mean to say that humanity will no longer be able to meaningfully help in any qualitative way with respect to intellectual tasks (e.g. AGI > human; AGI > human + computer; AGI > human + internet; AGI > human + LLM).
Fundamentally I believe AGI will never happen without a body. I believe intelligence requires constraints and the ultimate constraint is life. Some omniscient immortal thing seems neat, but I doubt it'll be as smart since it lacks any constraints to drive it to growth.
Re: Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI
#13Maybe I'm too pessimistic, but I doubt we will have AGI by even 2100. I define AGI as the ability for an intelligence that is not human to do anything any human has ever done or will do with technology that does not include itself* (AGI). * It also goes without saying that by this definition I mean to say that humanity will no longer be able to meaningfully help in any qualitative way with respect to intellectual tas…
If we consider OpenAI itself, a hybrid corporation/AI system, it's constraints are obvious.
It needs vast resources to operate. As the competition in AI heats up, it will continually have to create new levels of value to survive.
Not making any predictions about OpenAI, except that as its machines get smarter, they will also get more explicitly focused on its survival.
(As apposed to the implicit contribution of AI to its creation of value today. The AI is in a passive role for the time being.)
Re: Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI
#14I got this survey; for the record I didn't respond.
I don't think their results are meaningful at all.
Asking random AI researchers about automating a field they have no idea about means nothing. What do I know about the job of a surgeon? My opinion on how current models can automate a job I don't understand is worthless.
Asking random AI researchers about automation outside of their area of expertise is also worthless. A computer vision expert has no idea what the state of the art in grasping is. So what does their opinion on installing wiring in a house count for? Nothing.
Even abstract tasks like translation. If you aren't an NLP researcher who has dealt with translation you have no idea how you even measure how good a translated document is, so why are you being asked when translation will be "fluent"? You're asking a clueless person a question they literally cannot even understand.
This is a survey of AI hype, not any indication of what the future holds.
Their results are also highly biased. Most senior researchers aren't going to waste their time filling this out (90% of people did not fill it out). They almost certainly got very junior people and those with an axe to grind. Many of the respondents also have a conflict of interest, they run AI startups. Of course they want as much hype as possible.
This is not a survey of what the average AI researcher thinks.
Re: Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI
#15Maybe I'm too pessimistic, but I doubt we will have AGI by even 2100. I define AGI as the ability for an intelligence that is not human to do anything any human has ever done or will do with technology that does not include itself* (AGI). * It also goes without saying that by this definition I mean to say that humanity will no longer be able to meaningfully help in any qualitative way with respect to intellectual tas…
> I define AGI as the ability for an intelligence that is not human to do anything any human has ever done or will do with technology that does not include itself* (AGI).
That bar is insane. By that logic, humans aren't intelligent.
Re: Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI
#16Does anyone know potential causal chains that bring about the extinction of mankind through AI? Obviously aware of terminator, but what other chains would be possible?
Re: Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI
#17Maybe I'm too pessimistic, but I doubt we will have AGI by even 2100. I define AGI as the ability for an intelligence that is not human to do anything any human has ever done or will do with technology that does not include itself* (AGI). * It also goes without saying that by this definition I mean to say that humanity will no longer be able to meaningfully help in any qualitative way with respect to intellectual tas…
> I define AGI as the ability for an intelligence that is not human to do anything any human has ever done or will do with technology that does not include itself* (AGI). That bar is insane. By that logic, humans aren't intelligent.
What do you mean? By that same logic humans definitionally already have done everything they can or will do with technology.
I believe AGI must be definitionally superior. Anything else and you could argue it’s existed for a while, e.g. computers have been superior at adding numbers basically their entire existence. Even with reasoning, computers have been better for a while. Language models have allowed for that reasoning to be specified in English, but you could’ve easily written a formally verified program in the 90s that exhibits better reasoning in the form of correctness for discrete tasks.
Even with game playing Go, and Chess, games that require moderate to high planning skills are all but solves with computers, but I don’t consider them AGI.
I would not consider N entities that can each beat humanity in the Y tasks humans are capable of to be AGI, unless some system X is capable of picking N for Y as necessary without explicit prompting. It would need to be a single system. That being said I could see one disagreeing haha.
I am curious if anyone has different definition of AGI that cannot already be met now.
Re: Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI
#18I often think about this from a standpoint of curiosity. I am simply curious about how the universe works, how information is distributed across it, how computers use it, and how this all connects through physics. If I'm soon to be greeted by an AI friend who shares my interests then that's a welcome addition to my friend and colleagues circle. I'm not really sure why I wouldn't continue pursuing my interests simply because there's someone better at doing it then me. There are many people that I know better at this than me. Why not add a robot to the mix?
Re: Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI
#19A really simple approach we took while I was working on a research team at Microsoft for predicting when AGI would land was simply estimating at what point can we run a full simulation of all of the chemical processes and synapses inside a human brain.
The approach was tremendously simple and totally naive, but it was still interesting. At the time a supercomputer could simulate the full brain of a flatworm. We then simply applied a Moore's law-esque approach of assuming simulation capacity can double every 1.5-2 years (I forget the time period we used), and mapped out different animals that we had the capability to simulate on each date. We showed years for a field mouse, a corvid, a chimp, and eventually a human brain. The date we landed on was 2047.
There are so many things wrong with that approach I can't even count, but I'd be kinda smitten if it ended up being correct.
Re: Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I define AGI as the ability for an intelligence that is not human to do anything any human has ever done or will do with technology that does not include itself* (AGI). That bar is insane. By that logic, humans aren't intelligent.
What do you mean? By that same logic humans definitionally already have done everything they can or will do with technology. I believe AGI must be definitionally superior. Anything else and you could argue it’s existed for a while, e.g. computers have been superior at adding numbers basically their entire existence. Even with reasoning, computers have been better for a while. Language models have allowed for that rea…
[deleted]