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

AI 2040: Plan A

ai-2040.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 567 posts

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#311

Post by JumpCrisscross »

reasonableklout wrote: post #231
aarondong wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, this feels like a last ditch effort to revive the AGI narrative to reject the coming and current commoditisation of these models, contrary to all current evidence. https://artificialanalysis.ai/

How is commoditisation of models incompatible with AGI?

> How is commoditisation of models incompatible with AGI?

A recursively self-improving AI has strong first-mover effects. That isn’t fundamentally incompatible with commoditisation if there is literally only one path to super-intelligence and you can have AIs at different rings on that ladder co-existing. (Not technically commoditised at that point. There are still different rings. But close enough.)

But the existence of commoditised AI implies model selection isn’t a huge deal, which in turn implies the models are about the same, which strongly implies there is no recursive self-improvement. Depending on your definition, you may still have AGI. But you don’t have superintelligence.

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#312

Post by pibaker »

taurath wrote: post #267

This is religious fervor folks, as AI 2027 was. I grew up in evangelical christianity, and to them the end of the world is just around the corner, the same way it has been since I was a small child and likely will be when we are all gone. This isn't science. This isn't hypothesis experiment record results. This is very expensive astrology, shiny rock collecting, ritualistic meaning-making and self-justification. Yall…

When I learned that this website is by the same people who gave us AI 2027, I immediately thought about the Wikipedia page on doomsday predictions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_ap...

Notice the many times when a prediction failed and the so called prophet would come back in a few years and give you a new date. And they would tell you, well, this time it's real.

I do find it ironic that many of the AI predictions are coming from the self titled "rationalists." It seems like building your identity around being rational and immune to psychological pitfalls is a good way to ensure that you don't even notice that you have walked straight into the one psychological trap every cult has employed since time immemorial.

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#313

Post by gilrain »

trebaud wrote: post #304
taurath wrote: post #267

This is religious fervor folks, as AI 2027 was. I grew up in evangelical christianity, and to them the end of the world is just around the corner, the same way it has been since I was a small child and likely will be when we are all gone. This isn't science. This isn't hypothesis experiment record results. This is very expensive astrology, shiny rock collecting, ritualistic meaning-making and self-justification. Yall…

Or you deeply suffer from normalcy bias. Not believing that AGI is possible is irrational and unscientific imo, the human brain exists, it is not made of magic, it can reproduced. It is as simple as that. We can debate about timelines, architectures that may lead us there, etc... You can even talk all day long about definitions of AGI, and people waste their time doing that. But saying that the human brain cognitive…

> Not believing that AGI is possible is irrational and unscientific imo

This is an objectively wrong opinion.

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#314

Post by ToValueFunfetti »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #310
trebaud wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you deeply suffer from normalcy bias. Not believing that AGI is possible is irrational and unscientific imo, the human brain exists, it is not made of magic, it can reproduced. It is as simple as that. We can debate about timelines, architectures that may lead us there, etc... You can even talk all day long about definitions of AGI, and people waste their time doing that. But saying that the human brain cognitive…

> Not believing that AGI is possible One can simultaneously believe AGI is possible, be only modestly sceptical that our current methods are likely to yield it in the near term and still find the religious ferocity enveloping its discussion silly. > saying that the human brain cognitive capabilities cannot be reproduced on other types of substrates is stupid at this point Straw man. Nobody argued this. The discussion…

Nobody argued anything. GP just dismissed it as religion without engaging with a word of the material. Parent is taking a stab at why.

Not that I'm complaining. Cynicism is the failure mode I rely on HN for. It's the populism that's been getting to me.

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#315

Post by reactordev »

taurath wrote: post #267

This is religious fervor folks, as AI 2027 was. I grew up in evangelical christianity, and to them the end of the world is just around the corner, the same way it has been since I was a small child and likely will be when we are all gone. This isn't science. This isn't hypothesis experiment record results. This is very expensive astrology, shiny rock collecting, ritualistic meaning-making and self-justification. Yall…

The end of the world is always just out of reach. It’s the perfect carrot on a stick for people who are conditioned to be afraid.

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#316

Post by ToValueFunfetti »

lins1909 wrote: post #307
trebaud wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you deeply suffer from normalcy bias. Not believing that AGI is possible is irrational and unscientific imo, the human brain exists, it is not made of magic, it can reproduced. It is as simple as that. We can debate about timelines, architectures that may lead us there, etc... You can even talk all day long about definitions of AGI, and people waste their time doing that. But saying that the human brain cognitive…

How can not believing something that hasn't been proven be unscientific? Do you know that words mean things?

Science means the pursuit of knowledge. It doesn't mean "only believing proven things". If we're going to be rude, lets at least take the time to be right.

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#317

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ToValueFunfetti wrote: post #314
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not believing that AGI is possible One can simultaneously believe AGI is possible, be only modestly sceptical that our current methods are likely to yield it in the near term and still find the religious ferocity enveloping its discussion silly. > saying that the human brain cognitive capabilities cannot be reproduced on other types of substrates is stupid at this point Straw man. Nobody argued this. The discussion…

Nobody argued anything . GP just dismissed it as religion without engaging with a word of the material. Parent is taking a stab at why. Not that I'm complaining. Cynicism is the failure mode I rely on HN for. It's the populism that's been getting to me.

> GP just dismissed it as religion without engaging with a word of the material

Fair enough. I didn’t see anything novel in the article. So treating it as a motif within the abovequoted “Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People” context is fair and a real argument.

> Cynicism

Cynicism isn’t the opposite of blind optimism. Nihilism is. I’m not seeing a rejection of the article as being baseless as cynical or nihilist. It’s just pointing out a cultural thread that doesn’t seem to be useful.

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#318

Post by cindyllm »

ToValueFunfetti wrote: post #316
lins1909 wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can not believing something that hasn't been proven be unscientific? Do you know that words mean things?

Science means the pursuit of knowledge. It doesn't mean "only believing proven things". If we're going to be rude, lets at least take the time to be right.

[dead]

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#319

Post by trebaud »

lins1909 wrote: post #307
trebaud wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you deeply suffer from normalcy bias. Not believing that AGI is possible is irrational and unscientific imo, the human brain exists, it is not made of magic, it can reproduced. It is as simple as that. We can debate about timelines, architectures that may lead us there, etc... You can even talk all day long about definitions of AGI, and people waste their time doing that. But saying that the human brain cognitive…

How can not believing something that hasn't been proven be unscientific? Do you know that words mean things?

You dont seem to understand what proof means. Human brain is made of matter, matter can be arranged to make a thing that reproduces human brain properties. What's the confusion here? I say its unscientific because it places the human brain beyond the scope of what can be operated on. Not having the knowledge or tech yet to achieve that is irrelevant since we have an existence proof.

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#320

Post by ToValueFunfetti »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #317
ToValueFunfetti wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody argued anything . GP just dismissed it as religion without engaging with a word of the material. Parent is taking a stab at why. Not that I'm complaining. Cynicism is the failure mode I rely on HN for. It's the populism that's been getting to me.

> GP just dismissed it as religion without engaging with a word of the material Fair enough. I didn’t see anything novel in the article. So treating it as a motif within the abovequoted “Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People” context is fair and a real argument. > Cynicism Cynicism isn’t the opposite of blind optimism. Nihilism is. I’m not seeing a rejection of the article as being baseless as cynical or…

I hate to get bogged down in semantics, but with the hope that one of the stronger top-level critiques makes it into the top slot here and this conversation gets buried:

Cynicism is defined as

>An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others.

I'm not saying that cynicism is automatically wrong, just that I once could trust that, when HN is wrong, it is due to cynicism applied in excess.

Post reply on HN