The changing goalposts of AGI and timelines • Hacker News Board

Re: The changing goalposts of AGI and timelines

#111

Post by trollbridge » Sun, Mar 08, 2026, 6:49 PM UTC

wongarsu wrote: post #43

dgroshev wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just like everyone forgot about this https://www.wired.com/story/openai-staff-walk-protest-sam-al...

Employees are the ones with the real power to make this hurt. The customers switching over are easily offset by the DoD contract. But losing talent over this, and having a harder time to attract future talent? That could hurt them Sam probably expects to solve this by just offering more money. It worked in the past

Given the mass layoffs happening, I don’t think hiring talent is as hard as it’s made out to be.

Re: The changing goalposts of AGI and timelines

#112

Post by IshKebab » Sun, Mar 08, 2026, 6:50 PM UTC

sigmar wrote: post #64

IshKebab wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

putting aside the obvious gender-based prejudice in this comment- since when did the view that "humans should be in the loop before murderbots target and kill someone" become a "naive moral absolutist view of the world"? we're resigned to building the terminator now?

Yes, it's clearly inevitable. The advantages are too great, and the disadvantages too small.

We can't even avoid using weapons where the equation is much more "this is really awful" like cluster bombs and flamethrowers.

You might be a bit behind the times too. There are already plenty of weapons platforms that kill without a human in the loop. I believe the first widely known one was South Korea's sentry gun but that was 10 years ago.

Re: The changing goalposts of AGI and timelines

#113

Post by trollbridge » Sun, Mar 08, 2026, 6:50 PM UTC

mrcwinn wrote: post #104

Mission statements and blog posts are meaningless. Cap tables steer behavior and simultaneously protect interests. Stop forming unions or opining on Hacker News. We need to find a way to get citizens on the cap table in a meaningful way (and not at the very, very, very, very end of the waterfall underneath debt holders, hedge funds, governments, preferred investors). We are building this world for us. As it stands, d…

In other words: democracy.

Re: The changing goalposts of AGI and timelines

#114

Post by whatshisface » Sun, Mar 08, 2026, 6:51 PM UTC

BoxFour wrote: post #91

dmschulman wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Additionally that kind of public trust only works if you have a government operating under the constraints of a legal framework, and to a lesser extent, an ethical framework. When a government serves the whims of an individual and instead of the function of their office, shirking agreed upon laws, etc, then you no longer have a government serving the people.

Sure, that’s why I said "on its face." This administration is obviously very different than most. I don’t think Anthropic is wrong to include that clause with this particular administration, and I doubt the administration is internally framing the issue the way I did rather than defaulting to simple authoritarian instincts. But a more reasonable administration could raise the same concern, and I think I would agree w…

I don't think it's reasonable to take something the government is supposed to be protecting (right to contract) and turn them into its biggest threat. That's not security, it's letting the night guard raid the museum.

Re: The changing goalposts of AGI and timelines

#115

Post by hirvi74 » Sun, Mar 08, 2026, 6:51 PM UTC

lucianbr wrote: post #67

hirvi74 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This was about principle, not people. Why do I not believe this at all? Were things truly sunshine and roses at OpenAI up until this Pentagon debacle? Perhaps I am mistaken, but it seemed like the writing was on the wall years ago. > I have deep respect for Sam and the team I have even more questions now.

How can you respect someone who betrays a principle you care about for money? Not to mention that the principles are not being betrayed now for the first time.

> respect someone who betrays a principle you care about for money?

That is one of my many questions too. I am not certain I believe her either. People predicted AI would be used in such nefarious manners way before AI even existed.

Something about the whole resignation and immediate social media post seems more like an attention grab than anything else to me. Whatever her prerogative is, I still believe she is still partially culpable for anything that becomes of this technology -- good or bad.

Re: The changing goalposts of AGI and timelines

#116

Post by djoldman » Sun, Mar 08, 2026, 6:52 PM UTC

Anytime I see "Artificial General Intelligence," "AGI," "ASI," etc., I mentally replace it with "something no one has defined meaningfully."

Or the long version: "something about which no conclusions can be drawn because the proposed definitions lack sufficient precision and completeness."

Or the short versions: "Skippetyboop," "plipnikop," and "zingybang."

Re: The changing goalposts of AGI and timelines

#117

Post by ronnier » Sun, Mar 08, 2026, 6:53 PM UTC

esafak wrote: post #102

ronnier wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That simplistic question is not how things will work. I guess we’ll just get shot by Chinese AI, they will not stop.

You'd rather get shot by domestic bots first?

We have nukes, missiles, bombs, all capable of mass widespread death. Should we give those up too and just let adversaries be the only ones in possession of these types of weapons?

Re: The changing goalposts of AGI and timelines

#118

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Mar 08, 2026, 6:53 PM UTC

fwipsy wrote: post #89

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #22

AGI isn't going to happen within the next 30 years so this is moot. The actual researchers have said so many times. It's only the business people and laypeople whooping about AGI always being imminent. You cannot get real, actual AGI (the same ability to perform tasks as a human) without a continuous cycle of learning and deep memory, which LLMs cannot do. The best LLM "memory" is a search engine and document summari…

Given how many "fundamental" limitations of AI have been resolved within the past few years, I'm skeptical. Even if you're right, I am not sure that the limitations you identified matter all that much in practice. I think very few human engineers are working on problems which are so novel and unique that AIs cannot grasp them without additional reinforcement learning. > it will delete all the files in "X/" How many "…

[deleted]

Re: The changing goalposts of AGI and timelines

#119

Post by Lerc » Sun, Mar 08, 2026, 6:53 PM UTC

lucianbr wrote: post #67

hirvi74 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This was about principle, not people. Why do I not believe this at all? Were things truly sunshine and roses at OpenAI up until this Pentagon debacle? Perhaps I am mistaken, but it seemed like the writing was on the wall years ago. > I have deep respect for Sam and the team I have even more questions now.

How can you respect someone who betrays a principle you care about for money? Not to mention that the principles are not being betrayed now for the first time.

You could believe it is not about money.

Most importantly, this seems to rest more on if you believe the principle was being followed or not.

It is possible to believe one thing, have another person believe another thing, and respect that their decision is sincerely held but subject to a different perspective, as is our own beliefs.

You can stand up for what you believe and still respectfully disagree with someone with a different stance.

The problem is when you decide that reality always conforms to you opinion. If you assume the other person is aware of that reality and decides differently than it becomes a betrayal of principles. Assuming to know the internal state of another's mind to declare that it is for money becomes disrespectfully presumptuous.

Your problem is not in understanding how X can occur if Y. It is assuming that everyone agrees with you on Y.

You might be right about Y, you might be wrong. Even if you are right, it is still possible that Y is a belief a rational person can hold if their perspective has been different,

Re: The changing goalposts of AGI and timelines

#120

Post by fancy_pantser » Sun, Mar 08, 2026, 6:54 PM UTC

crote wrote: post #107

fancy_pantser wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's explicitly illegal in China. A 2017 national intelligence law compels Chinese companies and individuals to cooperate with state intelligence when asked and without and public notice. China has no equivalent of the whistleblower protection that enables resignations with public letters explaining why, protests, open letters with many signatures, etc. Whenever you see "Chinese whistleblower" in the news, you're loo…

Isn't that basically the same as a National Security Letter and its attached gag order in the USA?

It's along the same lines, but an NSL can be challenged in court (the FISC is a secret and lopsided court, alas). Companies like Apple and Google have fought specific orders publicly (and possibly some secretly), and some have won.

NSLs are also narrow in scope: they compel data disclosure, not active technical assistance in building surveillance systems like the Chinese law.

The Chinese laws can compel any citizen anywhere in the world to perform work on supporting state military and intelligence capabilities with no recourse. There have been no cases of companies or individuals fighting those orders.