It's not possible even in 10 years (.. but maybe in 11).
What a shift in the last 5 years (never -> 100 years -> 11)
AGI is not possible even in 10 years
31–40 of 106 posts
Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years
#32What a day to be alive, when people arguing if AGI will be possible in the next 10 years or 20 years.
It's plausible, in 2026, we are going to send to Mars fully autonomous humanoid robots, so AGI is right around the corner.
Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years
#33I 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.
Well said!
Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years
#34We don't even have an agreed measure for it, that's how far away we are.
Is there an RFC being developed for AGI?
Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years
#35What a day to be alive, when people arguing if AGI will be possible in the next 10 years or 20 years.
It's plausible, in 2026, we are going to send to Mars fully autonomous humanoid robots, so AGI is right around the corner. https://youtu.be/TsNc4nEX3c4?t=5
This is satire, right? As in, you are being ironic right now?
Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years
#36The paid models are already smarter than the vast majority of people.
Majority of people think they are better than average drivers. Surely those models are not smarter than _you_, right?
Half of all drivers are better than the average driver. Half of all people have an IQ lower than 100.
Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years
#37> The architecture might just be wrong for AGI. LeCun’s been saying this for years: LLMs trained on text prediction are fundamentally limited. They’re mimicking human output without human experience. Yes, and most with a background in linguistics or computer science have been saying the same since the inception of their disciplines. Grammars are sets of rules on symbols and any form of encoding is very restrictive. W…
>Yes, and most with a background in linguistics or computer science have been saying the same since the inception of their disciplines
I'm not sure what authority linguists are supposed to have here. They have gotten approximately nowhere in the last 50 years. "Every time I fire a linguist, the performance of the speech recognizer goes up".
>Grammars are sets of rules on symbols and any form of encoding is very restrictive
But these rules can be arbitrarily complex. Hand-coded rules have a pretty severe complexity bounds. But LLMs show these are not in principle limitations. I'm not saying theory has nothing to add, but perhaps we should consider the track record when placing our bets.
Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
There is a lot of learning involved in getting to be able run experiments in some areas.
What they also don't have is agency to just decide to quit, for example.
Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years
#39It 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.
As every consultant will eventually respond as that conversation sputters: it might be easier for us to define what AGI isn’t.
Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years
#40AGI has already happened. Grok4 and Gemini 3 Pro top models are around the 125-130IQ range. They are rapidly moving towards ASI.
Can they please do my laundry then?