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

Andrej Karpathy – It will take a decade to work through the issues with agents

dwarkesh.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 1001 posts

Re: Andrej Karpathy – It will take a decade to work through the issues with agents

#301

Post by aughtdev »

superconduct123 wrote: post #233

I always get a weird feeling when AI researchers and CS people start talking about comparisons between human brains and AI/computers Why is there a presumption that we (as people who have only studied CS) know enough about biology/neuroscience/evolution to make these comparisons/parallels/analogies? I enjoy the discussions but I always get the thought in the back of my head "...remember you're listening to 2 CS major…

Yeah, the last 3 years of "We now know how to build AGI" failing to deliver shows that there's something being missed about the nature of intelligence. The "We are all stochastic parrots" people has been awfully quiet recently

Re: Andrej Karpathy – It will take a decade to work through the issues with agents

#302

Post by nextworddev »

jb1991 wrote: post #58

I would bet all of my assets of my life that AGI will not be seen in the lifetime of anyone reading this message right now. That includes anyone reading this message long after the lives of those reading it on its post date have ended. Which of course raises the interesting question of how I can make good on this bet.

you can do that by shorting Oracle here

Re: Andrej Karpathy – It will take a decade to work through the issues with agents

#303

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ctoth wrote: post #289
jjulius wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why is there a presumption that we (as people who have only studied CS) know enough about biology/neuroscience/evolution to make these comparisons? Hubris.

The hubris here isn't CS people making comparisons, it's assuming biological substrate matters. Your brain is doing computation with neurotransmitters instead of transistors. So what? The "chemicals not electricity" distinction is pure carbon chauvinism, like insisting hydraulic computers can't be compared to electronic ones because water isn't electricity. Evolution didn't discover some mystical process that imbues…

> Your brain is doing computation with neurotransmitters instead of transistors

If it is, sure. But this isn't a given. We don't actually understand how the brain computes, as evidenced by our inability to simulate it.

> Evolution didn't discover some mystical process that imbues meat with special properties

Sure. But the complexity remains beyond our comprehension. Against the (nearly) binary action potential of a transmitter we have a multidimensional electrochemical system in the brain which isn't trivially reduced to code resembling anything we can currently execute on a transistor substrate.

> hese systems translate languages, write code, play Go at superhuman levels, and pass medical licensing exams... all tasks you'd have sworn required "real understanding" a decade ago

Straw man. Who said this? If anything, the symbolic linguists have been overpromising on this front since the 1980s.

Re: Andrej Karpathy – It will take a decade to work through the issues with agents

#304

Post by compass_copium »

robotresearcher wrote: post #277
godelski wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that to understand knowledge you have to have a model of the world. You have a small but important mistake. It's to recite (or even apply ) knowledge. To understand does actually require a world model. Think of it this way: can you pass a test without understanding the test material? Certainly we all saw people we thought were idiots do well in class while we've also seen people we thought were geniuses fail. The t…

In my view 'understand' is a folk psychology term that does not have a technical meaning. Like 'intelligent', 'beautiful', and 'interesting'. It usefully labels a basket of behaviors we see in others, and that is all it does. In this view, if a machine performs a task as well as a human, it understands it exactly as much as a human. There's no problem of how to do understanding, only how to do tasks. The 'problem' me…

Nonsense.

A QC operator may be able to carry out a test with as much accuracy (or perhaps better accuracy, with enough practice) than the PhD quality chemist who developed it. They could plausibly do so with a high school education and not be able to explain the test in any detail. They do not understand the test in the same way as the chemist.

If 'understand' is a meaningless term to someone who's spent 30 years in AI research, I understand why LLMs are being sold and hyped in the way they are.

Re: Andrej Karpathy – It will take a decade to work through the issues with agents

#305

Post by [deleted] »

awongh wrote: post #75

Now that Nvidia is the most valuable company, all this talk of actual AGI will be washed away by the huge amount of dollars driving the hype train. Most of these companies value is built on the idea of AGI being achievable in the near future. AGI being too close or too far away affects the value of these companies- too close and it'll seem too likely that the current leaders will win. Too far away and the level of sp…

[deleted]

Re: Andrej Karpathy – It will take a decade to work through the issues with agents

#306

Post by hackinthebochs »

mkbelieve wrote: post #114

I don't understand how anyone can believe that we're near even a whiff of AGI when we barely understand what dreaming is, or how the human brain interacts with the quantum world. There are so many elements of human creativity that are still utterly hidden behind a wall that it makes me feel insane when an entire industry is convinced we're just magically going to have the answer soon. The people heralding the emergen…

Big scientific revolutions tend to happen before we understand the relevant mechanisms. It is only after the fact that we develop a theory to understand how it works. AGI will very likely follow the same trend. Enough people are throwing enough things at the wall that eventually something will stick.

Re: Andrej Karpathy – It will take a decade to work through the issues with agents

#307

Post by mkipper »

newsclues wrote: post #278
dlcarrier wrote: post #241

Redefinitions aside, fully capable AI is right up there with commercially viable fusion power, cost effective quantum completing, and fully capable self-driving cars, as a technology that is quickly advancing yet always a decade or two away.

What was the last example where humans succeeded at a hard problem like that? Space flight?

Even if it's not some staggering triumph of human achievement, I'd argue that Ozempic (etc.) is similar. A magic weight loss drug has always captured the public's imagination, and it feels like I've been hearing about new weight loss drug studies in the news for my entire life that never went anywhere.

Re: Andrej Karpathy – It will take a decade to work through the issues with agents

#308

Post by rootusrootus »

ionwake wrote: post #57
andy_ppp wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it’s because of money and the hype cycle.

I mean you say this, but I havent touched a line of code as a programmer in months, having been totally replaced by AI. I mean sure I now "control" the AI, but I still think these no AGI for 2 decades claims are a bit rough.

I don't want to sound mean, but c'mon, the reality is that if you haven't touched a line of code in months, you are/were not a programmer. I love Claude Code, it really has its moments. But even for the stuff it is exceptionally good at, I have to regularly fix mistakes it has made. And I only give it the fairly easy stuff I don't feel like doing myself.

Re: Andrej Karpathy – It will take a decade to work through the issues with agents

#309

Post by matusp »

superconduct123 wrote: post #233

I always get a weird feeling when AI researchers and CS people start talking about comparisons between human brains and AI/computers Why is there a presumption that we (as people who have only studied CS) know enough about biology/neuroscience/evolution to make these comparisons/parallels/analogies? I enjoy the discussions but I always get the thought in the back of my head "...remember you're listening to 2 CS major…

We should completely strip all this talk from AI as a field (and get rid of that name as well). It just causes endless confusion, especially for general audience. In the end, the whole shtick with LLMs is that we train matrices to predict next tokens. You can explain this entire concept without invoking AGI, Roko's basilisk, the nature of human consciousness, and all the other mumbo jumbo that tries so hard to make this field what it is not.

Re: Andrej Karpathy – It will take a decade to work through the issues with agents

#310

Post by nextworddev »

SJC_Hacker wrote: post #294
benzible wrote: post #213

What's his estimate of how far we are from a definition of AGI?

True AGI will be able to improve itself without human intervention or even guidance

assuming it's "aligned" with a foundational model lab
Post reply on HN