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

Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–115 of 115 posts

Re: Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI

#111

Post by golol »

endisneigh wrote: post #82
golol wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- passing a hard Turing test, adversarial and with a duration of a few weeks and comparing with 10th percentile humans. - being a roughly human equivalent remote worker. - having robust common sense on language tasks - having robust common sense on video, audio and robotics tasks, basically housework androids (robotics is not the difficulty anymore). Just to name a few. There is a huge gap between what LLMs van do an…

I'm not sure these are good examples. What are the actual tasks involved? These are just as nebulous as "AGI". I assure you computers already are superior to a human remote worker whose job it is to reliably categorize items or to add numbers. Look no further than the duolingo post that's ironically on the front page at the time of this writing with this very post. computers have been on par with human translators at…

More specific tasks:

- Go on Linkedin or fiverr and look at the kinds of jobs being offered remote right now. developer, HR, bureaucrat, therapeut, editor, artist etc. Current AI agents can not do the large majority of these jobs just like that, without supervision. Yes they can perform certain aspects of the job, but not the actual job, people wouldn't hire them.

A hard Turing test is a proper Turing test that's long and not just smalltalk. Intelligence can't be "faked" then. Even harder is when it is performed adversarially, i.e. there is a team of humans that plans which questions it will ask and really digs deep. For example: commonsense reasoning and long-term memory are two pureky textual tasks where LLMs still fail. Yes they do amazingly well in comparison go what we had previously, which was nothing, but if you think they are human equivalent then imo you need to play with LLMs more.

Another hard Turing test would be: Can this agent be a fulfilling long-distance partner? And I'm not talking about fulfilling like current people are having relationships with crude agents. I am talking about really giving you the sense of being understood, learning you, enriching your live etc. We can't do that yet.

Give me an agent and 1 week and I can absolutely figure out whether it is a human or AI.

Re: Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI

#112

Post by ShamelessC »

ShamelessC wrote: post #61
jjcm wrote: post #19

A 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…

> At the time a supercomputer could simulate the full brain of a flatworm. Citation needed?

Just going to follow up and say “I don’t think that statement is even remotely true now, much less back then”. We haven’t accurately simulated any life forms. Failure to simulate C. Elegans is notable.

Re: Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI

#113

Post by novagameco »

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #106
novagameco wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the best case scenario is one where humans have all of our needs met and all jobs are replaced with AI. Money becomes pointless and we live in a post-scarcity society. The world is powered by clean energy and we become net-zero carbon. Life becomes pointless with nothing to strive toward or struggle against. Humans spend their lives consuming media and entertaining ourselves like the people in Wall-E. A tru…

But are we right now or ever really happy specifically? Happiness is always fleeting. Aren't our lives a bit dystopian already if we need to do work and for what reason? So that we can possibly feel like we are meaningful with hopes that we don't lose our ability to be useful.

Our lives are imperfect, but that doesn't make them dystopian. Some people hate their jobs, but I strongly believe that most people, especially men, would be utterly miserable if we felt unnecessary. You see this today, even, with many young men displaced from the economy and unable to find jobs or start families. A world in which humans are no longer needed in the economy will be inherently fragile, as I believe most people would go out of their way to destroy it

Re: Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI

#114

Post by shpongled »

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #105
shpongled wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who knows! I'm sure it depends on how accurately you want to simulate a flatworm brain. I think current AI research has shown that simply representing a brain as a neural network (e.g. fully connected, simple neurons) is not sufficient for AGI.

How has it shown that exactly if we just year ago had such a huge advance in terms of intelligence?

Estimates of GPT-4 parameter counts are ~1.7 trillion, which is approximately 20-fold greater than the ~85 billion human neurons we have. To me this suggests that naively building a 1:1 (or even 20:1) representation of simple neurons is insufficient for AGI.

Re: Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI

#115

Post by walkhour »

sveme wrote: post #16

Does 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?

This argument gives a 35% chance of AI "taking over" (granted this does not mean extinction) this century: https://www.foxy-scout.com/wwotf-review/#underestimating-ris.... The argument consists of 6 steps, assigning probabilities to each step, and multiplying the probabilities.
Post reply on HN