John Carmack’s ‘Different Path’ to Artificial General Intelligence

Post by Qem » Fri, Feb 03, 2023, 1:39 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #213

falcor84 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My take on this is that if anyone can learn a particular skill entirely from an AI, then it's not a skill you'd be able to monetize. And I really have no idea what, if any, are skills that AIs wouldn't be able to tackle in a decade.

People can learn skills from books, which are entirely passive. The learning process ultimately resides within the student; issues of motivation, morale, direction, diligence, discipline, time, and mental health matter a lot more than just going through some material.

Post by JKCalhoun » Fri, Feb 03, 2023, 1:41 PM UTC

rl3 wrote: post #137

Carmack makes four points—some of which I agree with—that are unfortunately disturbing when taken in totality: a) We’ll eventually have universal remote workers that are cloud-deployable. b) That we’ll have something on the level of a toddler first, at which point we can deploy an army of engineers, developmental psychologists, and scientists to study it. c) The source code for AGI will be a few tens of thousands of…

Post by qbasic_forever » Fri, Feb 03, 2023, 1:42 PM UTC

capitalsigma wrote: post #239

qbasic_forever wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny that all of these weird fantasies people have about AI are about replacing the rank and file workers. Why isn't anyone fantasizing about building an AI that out-performs the best stock traders, or captains an industry better than famous CEOs. I think a lot of it is just people projecting weird power fantasies on others.

Stock traders already use ML models. "Replacing traders with ML models" means "making the job 'trader' into a job that develops ML models, rather than more traditional things like doing research on companies (or whatever)." My understanding is that this transition basically already happened over the course of the last two decades or so.

Post by Tostino » Fri, Feb 03, 2023, 1:46 PM UTC

qbasic_forever wrote: post #245

capitalsigma wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stock traders already use ML models. "Replacing traders with ML models" means "making the job 'trader' into a job that develops ML models, rather than more traditional things like doing research on companies (or whatever)." My understanding is that this transition basically already happened over the course of the last two decades or so.

Sure but why are we paying someone like Jamie Dimon or Warren Buffett millions and billions of dollars when they could just be an AI that only needs a few dollars of electricity a day. Also why can't an AI develop AI models for stock trading? What's really left for the 'job' of the ML model creator, will it just be to press the 'Go' button and walk away...

Post by qualudeheart » Fri, Feb 03, 2023, 1:48 PM UTC

peepee1982 wrote: post #128

bbor wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you see “giftedness” as a 1D score, where someone is either smart or not smart? And presumably this quality happens to correlate with software engineering ability? I think you’re hinting at some very hurtful, dangerous ideas.

No. I don't. But some percentage of people don't really benefit that much from education as other people. And I wouldn't won't those people feel useless because it's more economical to replace them with bots instead of giving them something to do regardless.