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

The changing goalposts of AGI and timelines

mlumiste.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 411 posts

Re: The changing goalposts of AGI and timelines

#121

Post by fwip »

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 "…

> How many "I deleted the prod database" stories have you seen? Humans do this too.

Humans generally do it on accident. They don't preface it with "Let me delete the production database," which LLMs do.

Re: The changing goalposts of AGI and timelines

#122

Post by sulam »

The reality is that current models are simply nowhere near AGI. Next token prediction has been pushed very far, and proven to have applicability far beyond the original domain it was designed for (reasoning models are an application I would not have predicted) but it is fundamentally not AGI. It has no real world model, no ability to learn in any but superficial ways, and without extensive scaffolding this is all very obvious when you use them.

Re: The changing goalposts of AGI and timelines

#123

Post by kakacik »

reppap wrote: post #72
throwaw12 wrote: post #14

OpenAI: - we are building Open AI - only if you have more than $10B net worth - we are against using AI for military purposes - except when that case is allowed by government - we are on a mission to help humanity - again, we define humanity as set of people with more than $10B net worth - surrender? - sure, sure, we will, only to people with more than $10B net worth, they can do whatever they want to our models, we…

Sam Altman is just another Elon Musk. Saying whatever he thinks sounds good in the moment.

Its much, much broader. Almost all of them up there are hardcore sociopaths. When they look at you, they see a tool and source of revenue, not a human being. To be used, and then thrown away. Musk, Bezos, Gates, Schmidt, Altman, Thiel and so on and on. Most career politicians are similar.

Is this really the garbage that should lead humanity to our future? Because inevitably that will be a dark future for 99.99% of the humans. And no, you and you won't be part of that 0.01% or whatever tiny number of elite think they are better than rest of us.

Re: The changing goalposts of AGI and timelines

#124

Post by hirvi74 »

daheza wrote: post #68
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.

Sounds like a statement to ensure they aren’t blacklisted or seen as anti executive.

> they aren’t blacklisted or seen as anti executive.

Which further solidifies my belief that this person is being disingenuous.

Re: The changing goalposts of AGI and timelines

#125

Post by monsieurbanana »

surgical_fire wrote: post #109
fwipsy wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "…

> Given how many "fundamental" limitations of AI have been resolved within the past few years Eh? Which limitations were solved?

I can answer that one: none.

The only thing I can think of is massively increased context windows (around 4k for gpt3), but a million context token with degraded performance when full is not what I'd qualify as resolved.

Re: The changing goalposts of AGI and timelines

#126

Post by lich_king »

remarkEon wrote: post #69
lich_king wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My most straightforward read is that the military simply doesn't want their contractors to have a say in the war doctrine. Raytheon doesn't get to say "you can only bomb the countries we like, and no hitting hospitals or schools". It doesn't necessarily mean the Pentagon wants to bomb hospitals, but they also don't want to lose autonomy. A less charitable interpretation is that the current doctrine is "China / Russia…

>A less charitable interpretation is that the current doctrine is "China / Russia will build autonomous killbots, so we can't allow a killbot gap". What's the reason this is less charitable, exactly? Do we think this isn't true, or that we think it's immoral to build the Terminator even if China/Russia already have them?

I don't know what you're trying to argue about here. I meant "charitable" as in "not necessarily implying the thing critics worry about". The less charitable interpretation is that the implied thing is true but is seen as a necessity.

We'll leave the morality of war for another time.

Re: The changing goalposts of AGI and timelines

#127

Post by inquirerGeneral »

runarberg wrote: post #49
samrus wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I genuinely dont think it was profit first thenm i think it was all in good faith. Altman definitely got greedy and stabbed all that in the back

This is an extraordinary claim and it requires extraordinary evidence. There is nothing in Altman’s behavior current or past to suggest this was anything other then a money making grift. The easiest explanation for his betrayal is that he was simply lying.

[dead]

Re: The changing goalposts of AGI and timelines

#128

Post by marcosdumay »

sheepscreek wrote: post #38
kirubakaran wrote: post #3

""" I resigned from OpenAI. I care deeply about the Robotics team and the work we built together. This wasn’t an easy call. AI has an important role in national security. But surveillance of Americans without judicial oversight and lethal autonomy without human authorization are lines that deserved more deliberation than they got. This was about principle, not people. I have deep respect for Sam and the team, and I’m…

I 100% understand and agree the AI community argument around lethal autonomy. But I am trying to understand this from the perspective of defence & govt. Why is it so business as usual for them? Do they consider this at par with missiles with infra-red/heat sensors for tracking/locking? Where does the definition of lethal autonomy begin and end? Just putting this out there as a point to ponder on. By itself, this may…

> But I am trying to understand this from the perspective of defence & govt.

Hum...

The one thing domestic surveillance enables is defining targets inside the country, and the one thing lethal autonomy enables is executing targets that a soldier would refuse to.

Those things don't have other uses.

Post reply on HN