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

Anthropic Chief Says AI Could Surpass 'Almost All Humans ' Shortly After 2027

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 53 posts

Re: Anthropic Chief Says AI Could Surpass 'Almost All Humans ' Shortly After 2027

#21

Post by walterbell »

rUsHeYaFuBu wrote: post #20
walterbell wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're posting on a website called Hacker News, with countless HN discussions of security exploits of shipping products. Any recommendations on vendors of unhackable robots, a.k.a. computers?

> I don't think it will be a whole bunch longer than that when AI systems are better than humans at almost everything. Better than almost all humans at almost everything. And then eventually better than all humans at everything, even robotics." > Amodei also spoke some about the potential implications of highly intelligent AI systems when these AI models can control advanced robotics. "[If] we make good enough AI sys…

If the power of _some_ humans depends on robots+AI, and there is a long track record of computers/vehicles being hacked, then there is economic incentive for competing humans to hack robots, including but not limited to competing AI systems.

For a fictional treatment of this topic, see Jonathan Nolan's Person of Interest, which begins with one supercomputer, but ends with competing supercomputers and their competing human owners in an endless arms race.

The incentives in this scenario are power, not altruism.

Re: Anthropic Chief Says AI Could Surpass 'Almost All Humans ' Shortly After 2027

#22

Post by pavel_lishin »

shalabajser wrote: post #2

This is our future: short term growth in economy and stock markets followed by massive layoffs followed by economic crash followed by societal collapse. If you think this is all BS and you will be always smarter than any machine, realize that raw computing power grows by 10^6 every ~25 years. AI seems to follow the same growth. If you think you are safe, read what Geoffrey Hinton, one of the fathers of ML, said about…

> raw computing power grows by 10^6 every ~25 years.

For how many years has this been the trend?

Re: Anthropic Chief Says AI Could Surpass 'Almost All Humans ' Shortly After 2027

#23

Post by cheevly »

yladiz wrote: post #17
shalabajser wrote: post #2

This is our future: short term growth in economy and stock markets followed by massive layoffs followed by economic crash followed by societal collapse. If you think this is all BS and you will be always smarter than any machine, realize that raw computing power grows by 10^6 every ~25 years. AI seems to follow the same growth. If you think you are safe, read what Geoffrey Hinton, one of the fathers of ML, said about…

> raw computing power grows by 10^6 every ~25 years Good thing that the number of neurons in our brains are so many orders of magnitude larger than this that it doesn't matter. I think what you're getting at is that in the next few years we're going to have AGI, which will eventually cause societal collapse. Under that assumption, while all of the AGI arguments are pretty poor, computing power increases over time is…

Like 80% of the human brain is used for things that AI does not need (digestion, breathing, etc). So I think that automatically disqualifies your stance, but I am open-minded and would like to know what percent of the human brain you think is vital for AI to outperform us.

Re: Anthropic Chief Says AI Could Surpass 'Almost All Humans ' Shortly After 2027

#24

Post by cheevly »

cruffle_duffle wrote: post #7

This kind of hype is nutso. Look I use LLMs every day all day but they are assistants. They aren’t inventors or prognosticators. They cannot predict how the market will react to a product or idea. They cannot and will never be able to construct anything new outside of their training data. They’ll always need humans in the loop to come up with new interesting things and those humans will be the ones doing most of the…

Try providing the LLM the necessary context and you'll be pleasantly surprised. The problem is that we haven't created proper 'inputs' (data pipelines) into LLMs. But that is going to change this year with agents, and an entirely new software paradigm will emerge from it.

Re: Anthropic Chief Says AI Could Surpass 'Almost All Humans ' Shortly After 2027

#25

Post by rUsHeYaFuBu »

walterbell wrote: post #21
rUsHeYaFuBu wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think it will be a whole bunch longer than that when AI systems are better than humans at almost everything. Better than almost all humans at almost everything. And then eventually better than all humans at everything, even robotics." > Amodei also spoke some about the potential implications of highly intelligent AI systems when these AI models can control advanced robotics. "[If] we make good enough AI sys…

If the power of _some_ humans depends on robots+AI, and there is a long track record of computers/vehicles being hacked, then there is economic incentive for competing humans to hack robots, including but not limited to competing AI systems. For a fictional treatment of this topic, see Jonathan Nolan's Person of Interest , which begins with one supercomputer, but ends with competing supercomputers and their competing…

> economic incentive for competing humans

That's assuming there are competing humans left and economic gain to be had.

Re: Anthropic Chief Says AI Could Surpass 'Almost All Humans ' Shortly After 2027

#26

Post by EA-3167 »

cheevly wrote: post #23
yladiz wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> raw computing power grows by 10^6 every ~25 years Good thing that the number of neurons in our brains are so many orders of magnitude larger than this that it doesn't matter. I think what you're getting at is that in the next few years we're going to have AGI, which will eventually cause societal collapse. Under that assumption, while all of the AGI arguments are pretty poor, computing power increases over time is…

Like 80% of the human brain is used for things that AI does not need (digestion, breathing, etc). So I think that automatically disqualifies your stance, but I am open-minded and would like to know what percent of the human brain you think is vital for AI to outperform us.

Even if you discount the role of the whole body as an integrated system, signaling and talking to itself, coordinated by the brain... you're still talking about 16 billion neurons in the cortex alone. That may sound like a number we can approach or exceed with modern tech, but neurons are not transistors.

Those 16 billion neurons in the cortex form over 140 TRILLION connections through synapes. Those are both computing elements as well as memory.

There's no comparison, not even close. As a bonus we don't each require a giant warehouse to house us, we don't require a vast supply of water, nor do we require a personal dedicated power plant.

Re: Anthropic Chief Says AI Could Surpass 'Almost All Humans ' Shortly After 2027

#27

Post by gizajob »

rUsHeYaFuBu wrote: post #12
walterbell wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> let those without the means to guarantee their well-being just die off then History has some entertaining responses to previous holders of such viewpoints.

History doesn't have robot armies.

We’ve been able to nuke one another into oblivion for decades now. Constructing robot armies to do this better but worse is a huge hassle.

Re: Anthropic Chief Says AI Could Surpass 'Almost All Humans ' Shortly After 2027

#30

Post by rUsHeYaFuBu »

gizajob wrote: post #27
rUsHeYaFuBu wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

History doesn't have robot armies.

We’ve been able to nuke one another into oblivion for decades now. Constructing robot armies to do this better but worse is a huge hassle.

How is it a hassle? The machines can build and improve on themselves.

When there's very little economic reason to keep most people around. Then you just need enough force to keep people from taking what is yours and wait it out. No need to hunt anyone down indiscriminately.

Plus, nukes generally have been controlled by governments and mass use of them leaves little left for those in power and a whole lot of work for them.

Post reply on HN