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

321–330 of 567 posts

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#321

Post by davemp »

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…

There is a vast gulf between theoretically possible and technologically feasible.

If you can’t provide a realistic path to achieve something, you’re asking people to believe in science fiction.

You could tell me that a rock’s molecules are comprised of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Blood is also entirely protons, neutrons, and electrons; so theoretically, one could rearrange stone into blood. But without an actual method to do so, it sounds like you’re telling me that you can squeeze blood from a stone.

> the human brain exists, it is not made of magic, it can reproduced

Yeah. It only takes 9 months and ~18 years of training…

> But saying that the human brain cognitive capabilities cannot be reproduced on other types of substrates is stupid at this point

Let’s be clear. Everyone is talking about silicon transistors here. That’s what we’ve got.

Digital computers have real limits. Sensors and other sources of training data have real limitations. It’s not clear that we can organize them in a way to reproduce organic brains.

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#322

Post by sometimelurker »

voidmain wrote: post #158
sometimelurker wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

we should never make ASI, what I am saying is strongly sane. ASI = not good. AGI, ~human brainpower, can be made safe enough. > Are there examples of where we have collective decided not to pursue knowledge? Successfully? human GMO, some bioweopns, I'm sure theres a long list of awful stuff no one wants to exist.

If AGI means that AI+robotics can robustly substitute for human labor, and robots are cheaper and faster to build than humans, then (a) anyone ruthless enough can zerg rush and defeat any nations that don't discard humans, (b) no one without a massive robot army will be needed in any way by their rulers. If this isn't a recipe for a horrific outcome, what is?

> defeat any nations that don't discard humans

AGI doesn't do away with nuclear MAD, it just messes with economics and makes many people temporarily jobless. Temporarily because in a literal sense RLVR needs verification to train off of, and a lot of jobs cant be easily checked if theyre done. this includes AI safety people, preschool teachers, psychologists, and probably a lot more, including most of their bosses

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#323

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

taurath wrote: post #277
skrebbel wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's nuts how well "Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People"[0] aged. That talk is a decade old by now and still hits just as hard as it did back then, despite the incredible advances made in AI in the meantime. [0] https://idlewords.com/talks/superintelligence.htm

Yeah I think its possible that for many folks its the first time they're coming up on these concepts, and it troubles them in the same way that the concept of death troubles them (and me, to be clear!). For me its as simple as watching how people talk, and seeing how in every single case whatever the next thing is, if you believe It, there is only ever justification of doubling down, doing more, going deeper, reducin…

Did you actually read the text? OPs are calling that Plan D.

They're proposing an alternative, which is a global brake on frontier AI research to keep the basilisk in its jar until we work out what we're dealing with and how to handle it.

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#324

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

trebaud wrote: post #319
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?

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.

Even if we accept your premise, and not everyone does, the confusion is whether we're capable of creating an equivalent arrangement, even in principle, using alternative materials.

That's not "irrelevant", it's fundamental.

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#325

Post by victorbjorklund »

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…

It’s also theoretically possible to travel almost at the speed of light. Doesn’t mean it’s rational to talk about it today as if imminent.

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#326

Post by sometimelurker »

throwaway27448 wrote: post #185
sometimelurker wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

we should never make ASI, what I am saying is strongly sane. ASI = not good. AGI, ~human brainpower, can be made safe enough. > Are there examples of where we have collective decided not to pursue knowledge? Successfully? human GMO, some bioweopns, I'm sure theres a long list of awful stuff no one wants to exist.

It's not even clear that ASI is a coherent concept. But, I don't trust capital with either.

LLM + scale = more intelligent, this can be proven more than empirically, https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.15318 shows that neural nets can fit a number of independent AND-gate operations in their weights,

- if you have a system that is large enough to store, lets say 10^12 AND gates (all frontier llms can do this) - and this system can produce outputs based on previous things it has outputed

its turning complete, and RLVR on it is optimization over the space of algorithms. If an algorithm exists to do a task, and the task can be verifiably done, this finds the algorithm to solve the task most often.

it is obvious that this scales, from much-worse-than-human to slightly-worse-than-human, therefore it 100% can exceed humans.

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#327

Post by threetonesun »

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…

I put it in the same bucket as living on Mars. Can it be done? Probably. Are we close? Not as close as people seem to want to believe. Is it a goal that will largely benefit society in its current form? Absolutely not.

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#328

Post by sometimelurker »

timmytokyo wrote: post #162
sometimelurker wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But every exponential is at a certain point a sigmoid. strongly, no . its just hard to distinguish them. for example, radioactive decay. cmon

Point taken. But it's interesting that the example you give is one of exponential decay rather than exponential growth, which is the context of this discussion. Where in nature has anything ever grown exponentially in perpetuity? Bacteria in a petri dish multiply exponentially. Until they don't.

> Where in nature has anything ever grown exponentially in perpetuity?

you could make the argument for human total GDP, which looks like https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-gdp-over-the-long-..., but then again, you could say we just haven't reached the sigmoid in it. I personally doubt we will

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#329

Post by VladVladikoff »

>We already wrote a scenario about this, called AI 2027. It depicts takeoff happening in 2027 instead of 2030

So in less than 3 years, their exponential growth curve doomsday prediction has moved back 3 years. This seems to be the opposite of exponential growth.

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#330

Post by saltwatercowboy »

walrus01 wrote: post #288
beshrkayali wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is hilariously true > AI risk is string theory for computer programmers. It's fun to think about, interesting, and completely inaccessible to experiment given our current technology. You can build crystal palaces of thought, working from first principles, then climb up inside them and pull the ladder up behind you. People who can reach preposterous conclusions from a long chain of abstract reasoning, and feel co…

Being a prophet is probably great until you suddenly find yourself building a fortified compound in Waco, Texas and purchasing black market full auto machine guns.

Thank you for contacting Gunmetal Ranch, a legitimate 501(c). If your call is related to the class-action "most dangerous game" settlement, please hold for a cowpoke.
Post reply on HN