Live data from Hacker News

Why I don't think AGI is imminent

dlants.me

161–170 of 313 posts

Re: Why I don't think AGI is imminent

#161

We've already achieved AGI. Next is building AIs that are not just general, but able to equal or be better than humans.

if thats how you are defining AGI then I suspect its better to call it AGS. because what we have at the moment is specifically intelligent but generally stupid.

When Chess AI first came out they could easily be beaten by a beginner. AI tends to start out as stupid and then overtime better and better ones get released.

Re: Why I don't think AGI is imminent

#162
post #34

I don't really understand the argument that AGI cannot be achieved just by scaling current methods. I too believe that (for any sane level of scaling anyway), but this-year's LLMs are not using entirely last-year's methods. And they, in turn, are using methods that weren't used the year before. It seems like a prediction like "Bob won't become a formula one driver in a minivan". It's true, but not very interesting. I…

> I don't really understand the argument that AGI cannot be achieved just by scaling current methods. I too believe that (for any sane level of scaling anyway), but this-year's LLMs are not using entirely last-year's methods. And they, in turn, are using methods that weren't used the year before.

It's a tautology - obviously advancements come through newer, refined methods.

I believe they mean that AGI can't be achieved by scaling the current approach; IOW, this strategy is not scalable, not this method is not scalable.

Re: Why I don't think AGI is imminent

#163
post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Literally the 3rd or 4th thing you learn about ML is that for any given problem, there is an ideal model size. From my understanding this is now outdated. The deep double descent research showed that although past a certain point performance drops as you increase model size, if you keep increasing it there is another threshold where it paradoxically starts improving again. From that point onwards increasing the par…

That isn't what that research says at all. What that research says is that running the same training data through multiple times improves training. There is still an ideal model size though, it is just impacted by the total volume of training data.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1912.02292 "We show that a variety of modern deep learning tasks exhibit a "double-descent" phenomenon where, as we increase model size, performance first gets worse and then gets better." That is the first sentence of the abstract. The first graph shown in the paper backs it up.

Looking into it further, it seems that typical LLMs are in the first descent regime anyway though so my original point is not too relevant for them anyway it seems. Also it looks like the second descent region doesn't always reach a lower loss than the first, it appears to depend on other factors as well.

Re: Why I don't think AGI is imminent

#164
post #63

Here's a thought. Lets all arbitrarily agree AGI is here. I can't even be bothered discussing what the definition of AGI is. It's just here, accept it. Or vice versa. Now what....? Whats happening right now that should make me care that AGI is here (or not). Whats the magic thing thats happening with AGI that wasn't happening before? Right, so, not much has changed from 1-2 years ago that I can tell. The job markets…

AGI would render humans obsolete and eradicate us sooner or later.

Re: Why I don't think AGI is imminent

#166

> For example, transformer-based language models can't reliably do multi-digit arithmetic because they have no number sense, only statistical patterns over digit tokens. I asked Opus 4.6 to multiply 50,651 x 895,707. It immediately responded: 45,368,055,057. This was wrong, but very close (good to about 10^-5 relative error). I then asked it how it arrived at that answer, and whether it had used any tool calls. It sa…

Except we know how these work. There's no number sense. It's predicting tokens. It is able to recount the mathematical foundations because in its training dataset, that often happens, both in instructional material and in proofs.

I picked two random numbers between one and one million. The chances of it having seen that specific problem in its training set seem very low.

Re: Why I don't think AGI is imminent

#167
post #63

Here's a thought. Lets all arbitrarily agree AGI is here. I can't even be bothered discussing what the definition of AGI is. It's just here, accept it. Or vice versa. Now what....? Whats happening right now that should make me care that AGI is here (or not). Whats the magic thing thats happening with AGI that wasn't happening before? Right, so, not much has changed from 1-2 years ago that I can tell. The job markets…

I actually think it is here. Singularity happened. We're just playing catch up at this point.

Has it runaway yet? Not sure, but is it currently in the process of increasing intelligence with little input from us? Yes.

Exponential graphs always have a slow curve in the beginning.

Re: Why I don't think AGI is imminent

#168
post #31

Now that understanding video and projecting what happens next indicates we're getting past the LLM problem of lacking a world model. That's encouraging. There's more than one way to do intelligence. Basic intelligence has evolved independently three times that we know of - mammals, corvids, and octopuses. All three show at least ape-level intelligence, but the species split before intelligence developed, and the brai…

I've recently come to the understanding that LLMs don't have intelligence in any way. They have language, which in humans is a downstream product of intelligence. But thats all they have. There's no little being sitting at the center of the Chinese room. Trying to classify LLMs as intelligent is going upstream and doesn't work.

Re: Why I don't think AGI is imminent

#169

I don't know about AGI but I got bored and ran my plans for a new garage by Opus 4.6 and it was giving me some really surprising responses that have changed my plans a little. At the same time, it was also making some nonsense suggestions that no person would realistically make. When I prompted it for something in another chat which required genuine creativity, it fell flat on its face. I dunno, mixed bag. Value is p…

I've used it recently to flesh out a fully fledged business plan, pricing models, capacity planning & logistics for a 10 year period for a transport company (daily bus route). I already had most of it in my mind and on spreadsheets already (was an old plan that I wanted to revive), but seeing it figure out all the smaller details that would make or break it was amazing! I think MBA's should be worried as it did some…

Isn't all of this only useful if you know the information presented is correct?
Post reply on HN