Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI • Hacker News Board

Re: Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI

#21

Post by novagameco » Mon, Jan 08, 2024, 10:36 PM UTC

endisneigh wrote: post #12

Maybe I'm too pessimistic, but I doubt we will have AGI by even 2100. I define AGI as the ability for an intelligence that is not human to do anything any human has ever done or will do with technology that does not include itself* (AGI). * It also goes without saying that by this definition I mean to say that humanity will no longer be able to meaningfully help in any qualitative way with respect to intellectual tas…

I'm optimistic in that I hope we don't have AGI by 2100 because it sounds like a truly dystopian future even in the best case scenario

Re: Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI

#22

Post by albertzeyer » Mon, Jan 08, 2024, 10:37 PM UTC

endisneigh wrote: post #12

Maybe I'm too pessimistic, but I doubt we will have AGI by even 2100. I define AGI as the ability for an intelligence that is not human to do anything any human has ever done or will do with technology that does not include itself* (AGI). * It also goes without saying that by this definition I mean to say that humanity will no longer be able to meaningfully help in any qualitative way with respect to intellectual tas…

You say that a single AGI model should be as powerful as doing everything what the whole humanity has done in the last 100k years or so?

Or a group of millions of such AGI instances in a similar time frame?

Re: Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI

#23

Post by tayo42 » Mon, Jan 08, 2024, 10:38 PM UTC

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…

Is there something to read about simulating a worm brain. Neurons aren't just simply on and off? They grow and adapt physically along with their chemical signals. Curious how a computer accounts for all of that.

Re: Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI

#24

Post by jncraton » Mon, Jan 08, 2024, 10:40 PM UTC

tayo42 wrote: post #23

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…

Is there something to read about simulating a worm brain. Neurons aren't just simply on and off? They grow and adapt physically along with their chemical signals. Curious how a computer accounts for all of that.

Re: Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI

#25

Post by drtz » Mon, Jan 08, 2024, 10:40 PM UTC

idopmstuff wrote: post #3

> If science continues undisrupted, the chance of unaided machines outperforming humans in every possible task was estimated at 10% by 2027, and 50% by 2047. Maybe I'm overly optimistic (or pessimistic depending on your point of view, I suppose), but 50% by 2047 seems low to me. That just feels like an eternity of development, and even if we maintain the current pace (let alone see it accelerate as AI contributes mor…

I'm of the opposite opinion. I think there's some Dunning-Kruger-like effect at play on a macro scale and it's causing researchers to feel like they're closer than they are because they're in uncharted territory and can't see the complexity of what they're trying to build.

Or maybe I'm just jaded after a couple decades of consistently underbidding engineering and software projects :)

edit: Fix typo

Re: Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI

#26

Post by mistrial9 » Mon, Jan 08, 2024, 10:40 PM UTC

idopmstuff wrote: post #3

> If science continues undisrupted, the chance of unaided machines outperforming humans in every possible task was estimated at 10% by 2027, and 50% by 2047. Maybe I'm overly optimistic (or pessimistic depending on your point of view, I suppose), but 50% by 2047 seems low to me. That just feels like an eternity of development, and even if we maintain the current pace (let alone see it accelerate as AI contributes mor…

a single number as percentage is not useful here.. Intense video games ? of course.. plumbing professionals in a city ? not even close.. etc

Re: Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI

#27

Post by kristianc » Mon, Jan 08, 2024, 10:42 PM UTC

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?

I'm fascinated by this as well. There's a lot of conjecture around what if, but I'm yet to really hear much about the how.

Re: Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI

#28

Post by Nevermark » Mon, Jan 08, 2024, 10:42 PM UTC

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?

Machines won't need the biosphere to survive.

If they accelerate the burning of fossil fuels, extract and process minerals on land and in the ocean without concern for pollution, replace large areas of the natural world with solar panels, etc., the world could rapidly become hostile for large creatures.

An ocean die out as a result of massive deep sea mining would be particularly devastating. It's very hard to contain pollution in the ocean.

Same for lakes. And without clean water things will get bad everywhere.

Ramping up the frequency of space launches a few orders of magnitude into the solar system for further resources could heavily pollute the atmosphere.

Microbes might be fine, and be able to evolve to changes, for much longer.

Re: Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI

#29

Post by dogprez » Mon, Jan 08, 2024, 10:43 PM UTC

endisneigh wrote: post #17

murderfs wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I define AGI as the ability for an intelligence that is not human to do anything any human has ever done or will do with technology that does not include itself* (AGI). That bar is insane. By that logic, humans aren't intelligent.

What do you mean? By that same logic humans definitionally already have done everything they can or will do with technology. I believe AGI must be definitionally superior. Anything else and you could argue it’s existed for a while, e.g. computers have been superior at adding numbers basically their entire existence. Even with reasoning, computers have been better for a while. Language models have allowed for that rea…

The comparison of the accomplishments of one entity versus the entirety of humanity is needlessly high. Imagine if we could duplicate everything humans could do but it required specialized AIs, (airplane pilot AI, software engineer AI, chemist AI, etc). That world would be radically different than the one we know and it doesn't reach your bar. So, in that sense it's a misplaced benchmark.

Re: Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI

#30

Post by Keloo » Mon, Jan 08, 2024, 10:45 PM UTC

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…

How does it compare to the progress? Is the progress faster/slower?

Any links to read?