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

AGI is not possible even in 10 years

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 106 posts

Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years

#51

Post by hackinthebochs »

sublinear wrote: post #43
hackinthebochs wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yes, and most with a background in linguistics or computer science have been saying the same since the inception of their disciplines I'm not sure what authority linguists are supposed to have here. They have gotten approximately nowhere in the last 50 years. "Every time I fire a linguist, the performance of the speech recognizer goes up". >Grammars are sets of rules on symbols and any form of encoding is very restr…

I'm very confused by your comment, but appreciate that you have precisely made my point. There are no "bets" with regard to these topics. How do you think a computer works? Do you seriously believe LLMs somehow escape the limitations of the machines they run on?

What do you think these in principle limitations are that preclude a computer running the right program from reaching general intelligence?

Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years

#52

Post by BLKNSLVR »

incomingpain wrote: post #45
BLKNSLVR wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can they please do my laundry then?

Doing your laundry is a sign of general intelligence? If someone is a quadriplegic and cant do their own laundry, does that mean they arent intelligent?

My point is that your example is a one trick pony. An impressive and useful one trick pony, granted.

AGI is currently undefined, so any argument about it is meaningless, unless it's in aid of developing a definition.

An AI that knows how to do laundry, but is unable to perform said task is useless without the ability. But is it AGI with just the knowledge?

Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years

#53

Post by ACCount37 »

this_user wrote: post #48
charlie-83 wrote: post #7

It feels like any time scale on AGI is basically just made up. Since no one has any idea of how to get there, how could you possibly estimate how long it will take? We could stumble on some secret technique that unlocks AGI tomorrow or it could be literally impossible. You might as well ask how long until humans can cast magic spells.

The people most qualified to make an educated guess simultaneously have a direct financial incentive to claim that it is in reach within a few years. The only one who doesn't seem to care all that much is Le Cun.

He's under a direct financial incentive to claim otherwise.

If AGI is reachable in 5 years with today's architectures, then why would anyone fund his pet research in novel AI architectures?

Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years

#54

Post by BLKNSLVR »

rvnx wrote: post #32
vbezhenar wrote: post #8

What a day to be alive, when people arguing if AGI will be possible in the next 10 years or 20 years.

It's plausible, in 2026, we are going to send to Mars fully autonomous humanoid robots, so AGI is right around the corner. https://youtu.be/TsNc4nEX3c4?t=5

That's hilarious.

You can tell Elon doesn't even believe it's that close to pull off that little stunt. Fucking with his investors. Hilarious.

Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years

#55

Post by BLKNSLVR »

gambiting wrote: post #35
rvnx wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's plausible, in 2026, we are going to send to Mars fully autonomous humanoid robots, so AGI is right around the corner. https://youtu.be/TsNc4nEX3c4?t=5

This is satire, right? As in, you are being ironic right now?

They must be!

There's not enough Kool aid in the world...

Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years

#57

Post by RandomLensman »

ACCount37 wrote: post #50
sublinear wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm very confused by your comment, but appreciate that you have precisely made my point. There are no "bets" with regard to these topics. How do you think a computer works? Do you seriously believe LLMs somehow escape the limitations of the machines they run on?

And what are the limitations of the machines they run on? We're yet to find any process at all that can't be computed with a Turing machine. Why do you expect that "intelligence" is a sudden outlier? Do you have an actual reason to expect that?

Is everything really just computation? Gravity is (or can be) the result of a Turing machine churning away somewhere?

Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years

#58

Post by benterix »

ACCount37 wrote: post #53
this_user wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people most qualified to make an educated guess simultaneously have a direct financial incentive to claim that it is in reach within a few years. The only one who doesn't seem to care all that much is Le Cun.

He's under a direct financial incentive to claim otherwise. If AGI is reachable in 5 years with today's architectures, then why would anyone fund his pet research in novel AI architectures?

To have an alternative? So far the work on transformers was done in a large part in the open (except OpenAI which tried to be as closed as possible). There is zero guarantee that whoever discovers the path to AGI decides to publish the paper etc. It's just one of many reasons (a less important one IMO) why research into novel AI approaches is valuable for humanity.

Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years

#59

Post by AlexandrB »

rvnx wrote: post #9
RA_Fisher wrote: post #5

The paid models are already smarter than the vast majority of people.

Not sure why you are being downvoted. Seems like lot of people with high ego are not ready to accept the truth that a human has way less knowledge than a world encyclopedia with infinite and practically perfect memory.

Knowledge != Intelligence

Otherwise researching intelligence in animals would be a completely futile pursuit since they have no way of "knowing" facts communicated in human language.

Post reply on HN