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

Why I don't think AGI is imminent

dlants.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 313 posts

Re: Why I don't think AGI is imminent

#41

Post by pixl97 »

AngryData wrote: post #26

Until I can get a robot wife maid im not worried about or even confident I will ever see actual AGI. People have been predicting it for as long as fusion power and while progress has been made, we might still be like Romans dreaming of flight.

Dear sir, what does embodiment actually have to do with agi? Not much different than saying someone that is paralyzed is not intelligence.

More so, our recent advances in AI have massively accelerated robotics evolution. They are becoming smarter, faster, and more capable at an ever increasing rate.

Re: Why I don't think AGI is imminent

#42

Post by 9x39 »

nsainsbury wrote: post #33

I used to also believe along these lines but lately I'm not so sure. I'm honestly shocked by the latest results we're seeing with Gemini 3 Deep Think, Opus 4.6, and Codex 5.3 in math, coding, abstract reasoning, etc. Deep Think just scored 84.6% on ARC-AGI-2 ( https://deepmind.google/models/gemini/ )! And these benchmarks are supported by my own experimentation and testing with these models ~ specifically most recent…

>These models are demonstrating an incredible capacity for logical abstract reasoning of a level far greater than 99.9% of the world's population.

This is the key I think that Altman and Amodei see, but get buried in hype accusations. The frontier models absolutely blow away the majority of people on simple general tasks and reasoning. Run the last 50 decisions I've seen locally through Opus 4.6 or ChatGPT 5.2 and I might conclude I'd rather work with an AI than the human intelligence.

It's a soft threshold where I think people saw it spit out some answers during the chat-to-LLM first hype wave and missed that the majority of white collar work (I mean it all, not just the top software industry architects and senior SWEs) seems to come out better when a human is pushed further out of the loop. Humans are useful for spreading out responsibility and accountability, for now, thankfully.

Re: Why I don't think AGI is imminent

#43

Post by barfiure »

Legend2440 wrote: post #3

I've said it before and I'll say it again, all AI discussion feels like a waste of effort. “yes it will”, “no it won’t” - nobody really knows, it's just a bunch of extremely opinionated people rehashing the same tired arguments across 800 comments per thread. There’s no point in talking about it anymore, just wait to see how it all turns out.

Nope. Not good enough. Your approach won’t drive engagement. We need the same tired arguments across 1600 comments per thread.

Re: Why I don't think AGI is imminent

#44

Post by pixl97 »

hi_hi wrote: post #11

How will we know if its AGI/Not AGI? (I don't think a simple app is gonna cut it here haha) What is the benchmark now that the Turing test has been blown out of the water?

There is a different way I look at this.

Humans will never accept we created AI, they'll go so far as to say we were not intelligent in the first place. That is the true power of the AI effect.

Re: Why I don't think AGI is imminent

#45

Post by lostmsu »

nsainsbury wrote: post #33

I used to also believe along these lines but lately I'm not so sure. I'm honestly shocked by the latest results we're seeing with Gemini 3 Deep Think, Opus 4.6, and Codex 5.3 in math, coding, abstract reasoning, etc. Deep Think just scored 84.6% on ARC-AGI-2 ( https://deepmind.google/models/gemini/ )! And these benchmarks are supported by my own experimentation and testing with these models ~ specifically most recent…

While I think 99.9% is overstating it, I can believe that number is strictly more than 1% at this point.

Re: Why I don't think AGI is imminent

#46

Post by Lerc »

trial3 wrote: post #40
Lerc wrote: post #34

I don't really understand the argument that AGI cannot be achieved just by scaling current methods. I too believe that (for any sane level of scaling anyway), but this-year's LLMs are not using entirely last-year's methods. And they, in turn, are using methods that weren't used the year before. It seems like a prediction like "Bob won't become a formula one driver in a minivan". It's true, but not very interesting. I…

i think the minivan analogy is flawed, and that AGI is moving from "bob driving a minivan" to "bob literally becoming the thing that is formula one"

What would that even mean though? Who is making claims of that sort?

I feel like it's such a bending of the idea,that it's not really making a prediction of anything at all.

Re: Why I don't think AGI is imminent

#47

Post by pixl97 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #39
raddan wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not really the point. If our definition of AGI does not include "being able to reliably do logic" then what are we even talking about? We don't really need computers with human abilities--we have plenty of humans. We need computers with _better_ abilities.

OK, but "what we need" is not the question. If the definition of AGI is "as smart as the average human in all areas", then it doesn't matter if the average human is pretty useless at a lot of tasks, that's still the definition of AGI. But I'd like to think that, even though you could find exceptions, the average human is never confused about whether dogs can lay eggs or not.

I reached your view the day my grandma told me I was wrong and a hummingbird was a type of insect...

Like, it's in the name.

Re: Why I don't think AGI is imminent

#48

Post by lostmsu »

hi_hi wrote: post #11

How will we know if its AGI/Not AGI? (I don't think a simple app is gonna cut it here haha) What is the benchmark now that the Turing test has been blown out of the water?

To my knowledge Turing test has not been blown out of the water. The forms I saw were time limited and participants were not pushed hard to interrogate.

Re: Why I don't think AGI is imminent

#49

Post by pixl97 »

JSDave wrote: post #22
ryanSrich wrote: post #5

AGI is here. 90%+ of white collar work _can_ be done by an LLM. We are simply missing a tested orchestration layer. Speaking broadly about knowledge work here, there is almost nothing that a human is better at than Opus 4.6. Especially if you're a typical office worker whose job is done primarily on a computer, if that's all AGI is, then yeah, it's here.

AGI is when it can do all intellectual work that can be done by humans. It can improve its own intelligence and create a feedback loop because it is as smart as the humans who created it.

No, that is ASI. No human can do all intellectual work themselves. You have millions of different human models based on roughly the same architecture to do that.

When you have a single model that can do all you require, you are looking at something that can run billions of copies of itself and cause an intelligence explosion or an apocalypse.

Re: Why I don't think AGI is imminent

#50

Post by famouswaffles »

State of the Art Large Language Models are already Generally Intelligent, in so far as the term has any useful meaning. Their biggest weakness are long horizon planning competency, and spatial reasoning and navigation, both of which continue to improve steadily and are leaps and bounds above where they were a few years ago. I don't think there's any magic wall. Eventually they will simply get good enough, just like everything else.
Post reply on HN