431–440 of 496 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Definitely. When I started doing Machine Learning in 2018, AI wasn't a next word predictor.
When I was doing it in 2005 it definitely included that, and other far more basic things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It can? If you use 'multimodal transformer' instead of LLM (which most SOTA models are), I don't think there's any reason why a transformer arch couldn't be trained to drive a car, in fact I'm sure that's what Tesla and co. are using in their cars right now. I'm sure self-driving will become good enough to be commercially viable in the next couple years (with some limitations), that doesn't mean it's AGI.
There is a vast gulf between "GPT-5 can drive a car" and "a neural network using the transformer architecture can be trained to drive a car". And I see no proof whatsoever that we can, today, train a single model that can both write a play and drive a car. Even less so one that could do both at the same time, as a generally intelligent being should be able to. If someone wants to claim that, say, GPT-5 is AGI, then i…
The only difference between the two is training data the former lacks that the latter does so not a 'vast gulf'.
>And I see no proof whatsoever that we can, today, train a single model that can both write a play and drive a car.
You are not making a lot of sense here. You can have a model that does both. It's not some herculean task. it's literally just additional data in the training run. There are vision-language-action models tested on public roads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> single model that can both write a play and drive a car. It would be a really silly thing to do, and probably there are engineering subletities as to why this would be a bad idea, but I don't see why you couldn't train a single model to do both.
It's not silly, it is in fact a clear necessity to have both of these for something to be even close to AGI. And you additionally need it trained on many other tasks - if you believe that each task requires additional parameters and additional training data, then it becomes very clear that we are nowhere near to a general intelligence system; and it should also be pretty clear that this will not scale to 100 tasks wi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most people didn't think we were anywhere close to LLM's five years ago. The capabilities we have now were expected to be a decades away, depending on who you talked to. [EDIT: sorry, I should have said 10 years ago... recent years get too compressed in my head and stuff from 2020 still feels like it was 2 years ago!] So I think a lot of people now don't see what the path is to AGI, but also realize they hadn't seen…
I don't think AGI will happen with LLMs. For example, can an LLM drive a car?? I know it's a silly question but it's a fact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If SpaceX is still a “startup”, the word has lost all meaning.
It already has. Any tech company that is pre-IPO and still raising funding rounds is a "startup". I'm surprised there hasn't been someone to come up with a separate term for the stage of these kinds of companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, but on the plus side when the AI bubble bursts at least you've still got Excel.
No reason to believe it is a bubble
No hard proof it's a bubble. Bubbles can only be proved to have existed after they pop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
that's very different from OpenAI's previous definition (which was "autonomous systems that surpass humans in most economically valuable tasks") for at least one big reason: This new definition likely only triggers if OpenAI's AI is substantially different or better than other companies' AI. Because in a world where 2+ companies have similar AGI, both would have huge income but the competition would mean their profit…
It doesn't seem to say 100B a year. So presumably a business selling spoons will also eventually achieve AGI. Also good to know that the US could achieve AGI at any time by just printing more money until hyperinflation lets openai hit their target.
> Microsoft holds an investment in OpenAI Group PBC valued at approximately $135 billion, representing roughly 27 percent on an as-converted diluted basis It seems like Microsoft stock is then the most straightforward way to invest in OpenAI pre-IPO. This also confirms the $500 billion valuation making OpenAI the most valuable private startup in the world. Now many of the main AI companies have decent ownership by pu…
I think it's a bit late for that. Also, you have to consider the size of Microsoft relative to its ownership of OpenAI, future dilution, and how Microsoft itself will fare in the future. If, say, Microsoft is on a path towards decreasing relevance/marketshare/profitability, any gains from its stake in OpenAI may be offset by its diminishing fortunes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The two companies reportedly signed an agreement [in 2023] stating OpenAI has only achieved AGI when it develops AI systems that can generate at least $100 billion in profits. https://techcrunch.com/2024/12/26/microsoft-and-openai-have-...
So if their erotic bot reaches $100b in profit, they will declare AGI? lol