My AI Timelines Have Sped Up (Again)

Post by m3kw9 » Fri, Jan 12, 2024, 4:23 PM UTC

Post by ChatGTP » Fri, Jan 12, 2024, 4:25 PM UTC

kiba wrote: post #21

ChatGTP wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The belief is that once the AGI is here, the possibilities are endless for disrupting absolutely every aspect of our life and society, the end of human history is what I've hear Open AI folks say. There will be zero work, humans will be completely useless economically and we'll just have to hope that some how, all of this wealth is fairly distributed and we don't lose our minds from feeling completely useless. What y…

We don't know what will be at the end of this. It seems that the OpenAI folks are endlessly pursuing the technology of AGI without actually working on making sure that AGI benefit "all of humanity." They haven't even articulate what it means to benefit all of humanity.

Post by cedws » Fri, Jan 12, 2024, 4:27 PM UTC

feverzsj wrote: post #16

My AI timelines says next AI winter will come in 10 years, when people find it's a vaporware ... again.

Post by spywaregorilla » Fri, Jan 12, 2024, 4:29 PM UTC

idopmstuff wrote: post #10

vallode wrote: post #7

I'm no AI expert, I don't have a lot of domain knowledge but what irks me about reading through this entire blog post is the idea that we are hinging on a definition of AGI that apparently accounts for 95% (!) of "economically valuable work" while basically not talking _at all_ about the trades. No mention of construction, manual labour, mechanics, welders, painters, nothing! Is the author trying to say that all that…

I totally agree with this - it always seems like sort of a weird omission when people talk about AGI doing 95% of work without any discussion of robotics. It seems very obvious that you need bipedal robots (or a lot of different types of robots) to hit that number. Do these AGI predictions assume that we'll have those by the time they hit AGI? Or is the word "knowledge" supposed to be implied before the work "work"?…

Post by matt_heimer » Fri, Jan 12, 2024, 4:31 PM UTC

idopmstuff wrote: post #10

vallode wrote: post #7

I'm no AI expert, I don't have a lot of domain knowledge but what irks me about reading through this entire blog post is the idea that we are hinging on a definition of AGI that apparently accounts for 95% (!) of "economically valuable work" while basically not talking _at all_ about the trades. No mention of construction, manual labour, mechanics, welders, painters, nothing! Is the author trying to say that all that…

I totally agree with this - it always seems like sort of a weird omission when people talk about AGI doing 95% of work without any discussion of robotics. It seems very obvious that you need bipedal robots (or a lot of different types of robots) to hit that number. Do these AGI predictions assume that we'll have those by the time they hit AGI? Or is the word "knowledge" supposed to be implied before the work "work"?…