The paid models are already smarter than the vast majority of people.
[deleted]
AGI is not possible even in 10 years
21–30 of 106 posts
Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years
#22It feels like any time scale on AGI is basically just made up. Since no one has any idea of how to get there, how could you possibly estimate how long it will take? We could stumble on some secret technique that unlocks AGI tomorrow or it could be literally impossible. You might as well ask how long until humans can cast magic spells.
We might start by trying to define what AGI exactly is. It's an elusive goal.
Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years
#23The paid models are already smarter than the vast majority of people.
Not sure why you are being downvoted. Seems like lot of people with high ego are not ready to accept the truth that a human has way less knowledge than a world encyclopedia with infinite and practically perfect memory.
>>Seems like lot of people with high ego are not ready to accept the truth that a human has way less knowledge than a world encyclopedia.
Well, thank you for editing your own comment and adding that last bit, because it really is the crux of the issue and the reason why OP is being downvoted.
Having all of the worlds knowledge is not the same as being smart.
Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years
#24Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years
#25It feels like any time scale on AGI is basically just made up. Since no one has any idea of how to get there, how could you possibly estimate how long it will take? We could stumble on some secret technique that unlocks AGI tomorrow or it could be literally impossible. You might as well ask how long until humans can cast magic spells.
When you see these claims it's important to frame the assertion contextually as in the transformer generation , AGI is 10+ years away. This does not, however, account for the next architecture that will do more with less.
This is inconsistent with people like Hassabis or Sutskever giving time frames while also saying that LLMs won't get us to AGI.
Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years
#26The most interesting thing in this whole picture is not AGI, it's how the collective intelligence works. CEOs claim the AGI is near because that's how they manipulate the public. But the public knows that it's only a manipulation. So how come the manipulation is still possible?
Sunk cost fallacy? What percentage of the public has actually invested the billions/trillions and is now demanding something to show for it? I'm not sure the average joe wants copilot in their outlook, but sure as hell someone wants it in there
Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years
#27The paid models are already smarter than the vast majority of people.
If this is true then almost all of the jobs in the world would already be replaced by AI. Sure, the model might be better than most people at lots of things but there are still tasks that human children find easy and AI struggles with. I wouldn't call being better at something than humans being "smarter" than them; if you do, calculators must be smarter than humans since they have been better at adding up numbers tha…
For text and image-based tasks they are infinitely better than a human.
What they lack are arms to interact with the physical world, but once this is done this is a giant leap forward (example: they will obviously be able to do experiments to discover new molecules by translating their steps-by-steps reasoning to physical actions, to build more optimized cars, etc).
For now human is smarter in some real-world or edge cases (e.g. super specialist in a specific science), but for any scientific task an average human is very very weak compared to the LLMs.
Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years
#28I think the best take in AGI is Edsger Dijkstra's: “The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.” I am not interested in computers that have their own intelligence but I do want computers that increase my own intelligence.
I've read this multiple times and disagree.
If I had an AGI that designs me a safe, small and cheap fusion reactor, of course I would be interested in that.
My intelligence is intrinsically limited by my biology. The only way to really scale it up is to wire stuff into my brain, and I'd prefer an AGI over that every day.
Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years
#29AGI has already happened.
Grok4 and Gemini 3 Pro top models are around the 125-130IQ range. They are rapidly moving towards ASI.
Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years
#30This is slop right? >This isn’t a minor gap; it’s a fundamental limitation. >His timeline? At least a decade, probably much longer. >What does that mean? Simply throwing more computing power and data at current models isn’t working anymore. >His timeline for truly useful agents? About ten years.
You can tell by the post history.
It's just like with the fake StackOverflow reputation and fake CodeProject articles in the past.
Same people at it again but super-charged.