171–180 of 253 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
LLMs are neither of those. They're quite good at pretending they understand what you mean, but they don't. That's why they can't execute: they're mimicking the form, not the substance, and then we see the form and anthropomorphise them in our minds.
That's a lot of assertions with no real argument to back it up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The people saying this is happening are competing with each other for resources, so there's no way for one of them to hold back without losing out to the others. We see this with people dropping Claude subscriptions in favor of ChatGPT because codex 5.5 > Claude Opus 4.6/7/8. Anthropic is losing money by not releasing Mythos.
You are proposing that going from N companies chasing AGI to N-1 companies chasing AGI will have zero effect on when AGI happens?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The people saying this is happening are competing with each other for resources, so there's no way for one of them to hold back without losing out to the others. We see this with people dropping Claude subscriptions in favor of ChatGPT because codex 5.5 > Claude Opus 4.6/7/8. Anthropic is losing money by not releasing Mythos.
You are proposing that going from N companies chasing AGI to N-1 companies chasing AGI will have zero effect on when AGI happens?
It only takes one of them to do it and they are not sharing information. If the 1 you remove from N is the one that will discover it, then it will dramatically affect when AGI happens. If it is not, then it will have zero effect.
The latter is far more likely if N>2
The former is no challenge to the premise, but the latter? That is a different story.
EDIT : For S&G I asked Claude about it. It replied :
The talk groups Penrose with the religious doubter, as if the two objections were the same species and could be dispatched by the same gesture: most of us find this easy to accept. But that's a headcount, not an argument. The religious objection can be set aside because it rests on a premise (the soul) the materialist simply doesn't share. Penrose's can't, because it's pitched entirely inside the materialist frame — Gödelian limits on algorithmic understanding, non-computable physics in the substrate. You don't get to wave that away; you have to show it's wrong. The talk does the former and pretends it's done the latter.
The entire superintelligence thesis is a wager on the authority of intelligence — that smarter minds see further, judge better, and that this is precisely why we should fear or defer to them. If you take that seriously, then dissent from the very smartest humans on the exact question of whether minds are substrate-independent is the most expensive dissent available. You can't venerate intelligence as the thing that settles everything and then file your most intelligent objector under "outliers, moving on." The move is self-undermining on the argument's own terms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. That said, unlike cheetahs, there’s plenty of evidence of leopards attacking humans. And these days, it’s the leopards, the closed-AI types and misanthropes -- telling everyone, “AI will take your job and there’s nothing you can do about it.”
I keep seeing this and I want to speak to it. When Dario and others say things like "this is happening and we should probably figure out what to do about it" what ends up happening is people hear "this is happening," see that the person warning them is the person doing the thing, and then short-circuit. "Why can't you just stop then?" Dario's point, and the point of the people actually trying to solve the problem, is…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From my point of view we have simply no idea what a infinitely smart AGI is and how to build it. How would it make the combinatorial explosion in state space search go away, to pick one example? And if it doesn't, is it then an infinitely smart AGI? The concept seems to assume all problems humans struggle with can be solved. The halting problem is one witness that this is probably not true.
If you're gonna look at it that way, then the halting problem is just a dressed up computer science version of the question "can God make a rock so heavy even he can't lift it?" Could an infinitely smart AGI come up with the answer to the unanswerable question? It doesn't need to be infinitely smart to do a better job than the worst of humanity's blunders.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are proposing that going from N companies chasing AGI to N-1 companies chasing AGI will have zero effect on when AGI happens?
Aidenn0 said they're doing their best to accelerate it, and I'm saying "they're" isn't a single monolithic entity and that they're in competition with each other so they're incentivized to go as fast as possible, so it would be hard to hold them back.
Maybe it would run afoul of antitrust regulations, but it's totally realistic for all those competitors to get together and say "hey, we could really fuck up society in our race to get rich with this tech, lets all slow down." And if these companies are run my mature people who don't subordinate every consideration to greed, they'd to it.
2026: hold my molt beer
(I love how "connect an ai to the internet" is always the precursor to doom in pre-2022 scifi scenarios, and then as soon as we get something we call ai we hit that big red button)
> If you encountered a cheetah in pre-industrial times (and survived the meeting), you might think it was impossible for anything to go faster. Fun fact, there is no historical evidence of an adult human ever dying from a cheetah attack. They are naturally shy, and a lot smaller than you may realize.
[1] There’s a well known viral video of a wildlife park keeper who sleeps with three cheetahs who behave pretty much like large house cats.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Cheetahs are very fast, but humans have way more endurance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_versus_Horse_Marathon > The Man versus Horse Marathon is an annual race over 21 miles (34 km), where runners compete against riders on horseback through a mix of road, trail and mountainous terrain. The race, which is a shorter distance than an official marathon road race, takes place in the Welsh town of Llanwrtyd Wells e…
The Man vs Horse marathon is interesting but in a real race we have no actual chance of winning. There are horse endurance races where the winner arrived in 7,5 hours after 160km[1]. That's a sub 2-hours marathon almost 4 times in a row (not to mention with a guy on your back). [1] https://eatnstays.com/uaes-almazrouei-wins-almutadil-cup-at-...
https://www.enduranceonline.it/live/cat/V.php?gara_id=1911&v...