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

Google DeepMind CEO says some form of AGI possible in a few years

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–388 of 388 posts

Re: Google DeepMind CEO says some form of AGI possible in a few years

#381

Post by ZiiS »

SanderNL wrote: post #380
ZiiS wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point was not that the current approaches are fruitless; it is that we have no information to decide if they will lead to AGI in a few years or not. Whilst this fits a dictionary definition of "possible" they are trying to make it sound "likely" with no evidence.

Excuse me, I was being snarky. I agree that we are low on information, but I guess we disagree on how low. You imply we have so little information the outcome is basically random, which I think is a bit too extreme. I don't find it far-fetched to imagine current AI research - not just LLMs - to get us to AGI-likeness in years (5-10). I deliberately use "likeness", because I also think we will never agree on what it m…

Yes 100% they will decide when they have surpassed; not just because we will be emotional about it; but becase by definition they will be better at deciding things by then.

Re: Google DeepMind CEO says some form of AGI possible in a few years

#382

Post by olddustytrail »

hammyhavoc wrote: post #359
olddustytrail wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, because they do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_language_model#/media/Fi... If you're asking "Why does anything emerge?", I don't think anyone really knows.

It's in reference to your comment about "emotions, motivations, behaviors, or goals". Why would any of these emerge?

I didn't make any such comment and don't see that quote in the parent comments. That's the trouble with you LLMs: the hallucinations ;)

Re: Google DeepMind CEO says some form of AGI possible in a few years

#383

Post by CatWChainsaw »

dzink wrote: post #9

AGI is the point when humans lose control, but between now and then they will lose a lot of white collar employment jobs. Based on the increase in productivity of anyone equipped with AI tools, we may see a lot of self-employment become more and more viable and lucrative.

Per that AI Dilemma documentary, we likely already lost control at "first contact" of social media.

Re: Google DeepMind CEO says some form of AGI possible in a few years

#384

Post by CatWChainsaw »

Aerbil313 wrote: post #340
zamnos wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The future is here, its just unevenly distributed. If you live in a specific collection of neighborhoods in San Francisco or Phoenix, robo taxis are already here.

Haha, I just read the other day on r/collapse that "Collapse (of the civilization) is already here, just not evenly distributed."

Good news is you're both right. Collapse is the future. :)

Re: Google DeepMind CEO says some form of AGI possible in a few years

#385

Post by CatWChainsaw »

CrampusDestrus wrote: post #213
blast wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We dont have better algorithms, we just have more data" - Peter Norvig

"We don't have better brains than our ancestors, we just have more data"

Our brains are different from our ancestors'. Proto-humans had less frontal cortex and more ability to process information in the immediate spacetime around them, more evenly distributed across the five senses.

Re: Google DeepMind CEO says some form of AGI possible in a few years

#386

Post by marcusverus »

Kbelicius wrote: post #375
marcusverus wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's all moot until we can agree on a definition of intelligence. We did agree on a definition intelligence! For 50 years, the Turing test was the unquestioned threshold beyond which machines would be considered "intelligent". The simple fact of the matter is that we've reached that point, but folks remain unimpressed, and so have set about moving the goalposts. I am of the opinion that, when the dust settles, the…

> We did agree on a definition intelligence! For 50 years, the Turing test was the unquestioned threshold beyond which machines would be considered "intelligent". First of all it is now more then 70 years. Secondly the question of the paper isn't whether a computer is intelligent but whether a computer can win the imitation game, so naturally it doesn't contain any definition of intelligence within it.

> Secondly the question of the paper isn't whether a computer is intelligent but whether a computer can win the imitation game, so naturally it doesn't contain any definition of intelligence within it.

The game IS Turing's definition of intelligence! From the paper:

> I PROPOSE to consider the question, ‘Can machines think?’ This should begin with definitions of the meaning of the terms ‘machine’ and ‘think’. The definitions might be framed so as to reflect so far as possible the normal use of the words, but this attitude is dangerous. If the meaning of the words ‘machine’ and ‘think’ are to be found by examining how they are commonly used it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the meaning and the answer to the question, ‘Can machines think?’ is to be sought in a statistical survey such as a Gallup poll. But this is absurd. Instead of attempting such a definition I shall replace the question by another which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words. The new form of the problem can be described in terms of a game...

Re: Google DeepMind CEO says some form of AGI possible in a few years

#387

Post by beanbean01 »

vidarh wrote: post #175
kranke155 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hallucinations are an indication that something is missing, surely? Does chatGPT need a way to verify reality for itself to become truly intelligent ?

Humans "hallucinate" in the AI sense (it's an awful word that obscures how often we do it) all the time too. You'll find people confidently make claims not supported by data or indeed by any of their own data all the time, where when you poke around in their justifications you'll find they have none. The key difference appears a combination of two factors: We appear to be more likely to have learnt which subjects we'…

Yes, but there's a critical difference. When humans hallucinate, it's normally because they misremember something: did you know, for instance, that our brains have to piece every memory together from scratch every time we recall something? It would be a miracle if humans did NOT hallucinate.

In other words, the human has a concept of truth or facts and simply had a memory lapse. This thing has no concept of truth at all.

Re: Google DeepMind CEO says some form of AGI possible in a few years

#388

Post by beanbean01 »

riffraff wrote: post #376
vidarh wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans are confidently wrong about all kinds of things all the time. We don't call it hallucination other than for very specific, limited subsets. We call each other names over it, call it mistakes, stupidity, or lies. In fact, we structure large parts of society around it (the presence of multiple contradictory world religions means the majority of the worlds population goes through life being confidently wrong). It…

> Humans are confidently wrong about all kinds of things all the time there is a qualitative difference: humans may be wrong about facts because they think they are true, ChatGPT is wrong because it does not know what anything means. You cannot fix that, because it's just the way LLMs work. For example, if asked about a URL for something, a human may remember it wrongly, but will in general say "I don't know, let me…

THANK YOU. You've stated the difference perfectly. Humans have a concept of truth or grounding, LLMs do not.
Post reply on HN