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

101–106 of 106 posts

Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years

#101

Post by keernan »

ACCount37 wrote: post #82
keernan wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We're yet to find any process at all that can't be computed with a Turing machine. Life. Consciousness. A soul. Imagination. Reflection. Emotions.

Again: why can't any of that run on a sufficiently capable computer? I can't help but perceive this as pseudo-profound bullshit. "Real soul and real imagination cannot run on a computer" is a canned "profound" statement with no substance to it whatsoever. If a hunk of wet meat the size of a melon can do it, then why not a server rack full of nanofabricated silicon?

For the same reason you don't sit and talk with rocks. Nobody understands how it is that wet meat can do these things but rocks cannot. And a computer is a rock. As such, we have no idea whether all the hunks of wet meat in the world can figure out how to transform rocks into wet meat.

Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years

#102

Post by ACCount37 »

keernan wrote: post #101
ACCount37 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again: why can't any of that run on a sufficiently capable computer? I can't help but perceive this as pseudo-profound bullshit. "Real soul and real imagination cannot run on a computer" is a canned "profound" statement with no substance to it whatsoever. If a hunk of wet meat the size of a melon can do it, then why not a server rack full of nanofabricated silicon?

For the same reason you don't sit and talk with rocks. Nobody understands how it is that wet meat can do these things but rocks cannot. And a computer is a rock. As such, we have no idea whether all the hunks of wet meat in the world can figure out how to transform rocks into wet meat.

You don't?

Modern computers can understand natural language, and can reply in natural language. This isn't even particularly new, we've had voice assistants for over a decade. LLMs are just far better at it.

Again: I see no reason why silicon plates can't do the same exact things a mush of wet meat does. And recent advances in AI sure suggest that they can.

Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years

#103

Post by skhameneh »

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.

I'm convinced it'll be in the form of emergence and it won't immediately be known when it's started.

It may very well already be here, but the feedback loops are excruciatingly long and expensive.

Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years

#104

Post by diego_moita »

ACCount37 wrote: post #84
diego_moita wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get the idea. But if I can't understand how and why the fusion reactor is safe, small and cheap, I wouldn't consider it safe. Very much the same way that I don't take Claude Code's changes to my code without understanding what it does. Augmenting my intelligence is non-negotiable. I want to be in control. It is the classic "trust but verify". And I need my own intelligence to verify.

What is the value of you in this system? If an AI is advanced enough to design mass production ready fusion reactors, I can't help but feel that the "human in charge of that AI" quickly becomes fully redundant. There is nothing that human can do that the AI itself can't do faster, better and cheaper.

True, mostly.

This idea of "AI taking control" reminds me a lot what Karl Marx would say about "capital".

He wrote his things during the blooming of the second industrial revolution, a time when machines were replacing humans and forcing forward new economic, social, political, cultural and labour relations. And a key issue he stressed a lot is that this diffusion of machines and capital reshaping society was brought forward by a class of people that he called the bourgeoisie. He stressed a lot that it was a power struggle within society.

We're going through something similar today with the information technologies reshaping social relations. And the Bezos/Zuckerberg/Altman/Ellison of today are similar to the industrial barons from the Gilded Age. But, the same way that people reacted against the full-blown wild capitalism from 19th century's second half, we might also see some reactions against the advance of this techno-plutocracy.

In particular, I am optimistic about how the EU and some 3rd World countries (e.g. India, Brazil) are placing restrictions on social networks and techno-cartels.

> What is the value of you in this system?

So, to answer your question: individually I can't go beyond much more than careful choices (avoid cookies, stay out of Facebook, etc). Collectively we can make political choices. Ultimately, the most consequential political choice is move away from countries that give all power to the techno barons.

Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years

#105

Post by diego_moita »

imiric wrote: post #85
diego_moita wrote: post #14

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.

Whether or not that question is interesting is hardly relevant in this particular discussion. Companies building this technology are marketing it as if computers can think. They're telling us they can, and people are buying into it based on that claim. So that quote doesn't reconcile the extraordinary claims of one side with the skepticism of the other. And also, no disrespect to Dijkstra, but that sentiment is a bit…

> and people are buying into it based on that claim.

I say this remains to be seen. You know that a lot of times you see the expression "AI" in the news. it comes followed by the word "bubble", right? If we see a big crash on the AI companies stocks we'll have proof that people aren't buying. And I strongly believe we'll see this crash and I think smart people aren't buying it.

OTOH, I think we need to be careful with the usage of the word "think". Dijkstra would probably give it a very broad meaning, going from French Impressionism, Bach and Shakespeare to Relativity Theory, Evolution Theory or Quantum physics, maybe even to Maradona's or Johan Cruyft's feet (Dijkstra was Dutch, remember). Computers and AI might go very deep in their "think" but will be very, very bad at the broad game. Frankly, I don't see how Markov Chain based technologies (e.g LLMs and most of AI today) can stop being replicators and start being innovators.

It is a bit like Pablo Picasso's quotation: "Computers are useless, they can only provide us answers".

Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years

#106

Post by queenkjuul »

RA_Fisher wrote: post #99
gambiting wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Seems like lot of people with high ego are not ready to accept the truth that a human has way less knowledge than a world encyclopedia. Well, thank you for editing your own comment and adding that last bit, because it really is the crux of the issue and the reason why OP is being downvoted. Having all of the worlds knowledge is not the same as being smart.

Smart is being able to produce knowledge quickly. I’m not sure how it could be denied that AIs are capable of producing knowledge quickly (obviously extremely quickly).

You really don't think being smart has anything to do with applying that knowledge?

The smartest kid in class was not the one that memorized the most facts.

Post reply on HN