501–510 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see only one with 4% chance in 2025 (obviously...). And AGI is defined as "OpenAI announces they reached AGI". https://polymarket.com/event/openai-announces-it-has-achieve...
Here's 46% for 2030. It's had $350k in volume across the 4 markets. https://kalshi.com/markets/kxoaiagi/openai-achieves-agi/oaia...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
genuinely curious to hear your reasoning for why this is the case. i'm always somewhere between bemused and annoyed opening the daily HN thread about AGI and seeing everyone's totally unfounded confidence in their predictions. my position is I have no idea what is going to happen.
what about the fact frontier labs are spending more compute on viral AI video slop and soon-to-be-obsoleted workplace usecases than research? Even if you don't understand the technicals, surely you understand if any party was on the verge of AGI they wouldn't behave as these companies behave?
I would bet all of my assets of my life that AGI will not be seen in the lifetime of anyone reading this message right now. That includes anyone reading this message long after the lives of those reading it on its post date have ended. Which of course raises the interesting question of how I can make good on this bet.
Like I was watching Hinton explain LLMs to Jon Stewart and they were saying they came up with the algorithm in 1986 but then it didn't really work for the decades until now because the hardware wasn't up to it (https://youtu.be/jrK3PsD3APk?t=1899)
If things were 1000x faster you could semi randomly try all sorts of arrangements of neural nets to see which think better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's 46% for 2030. It's had $350k in volume across the 4 markets. https://kalshi.com/markets/kxoaiagi/openai-achieves-agi/oaia...
That’s also about OpenAI claiming they have AGI. That doesn’t resolve based on actual AGI.
To throw two pennies in the ocean of this comment section - I’d argue we still lack schematic-level understanding of what “intelligence” even is or how it works. Not to mention how it interfaces with “consciousness”, and their likely relation to each other. Which kinda invalidates a lot of predictions/discussions of “AGI” or even in general “AI”. How can one identify Artificial Intelligence/AGI without a modicum of u…
This so much this. We don’t even have a good model for how invertebrate minds work or a good theory of mind. We can keep imitating understanding but it’s far from any actual intelligence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> that does not have a technical meaning I don't think the definition is very refined, but I think we should be careful to differentiate that from useless or meaningless. I would say most definitions are accurate, but not precise. It's a hard problem, but we are making progress on it. We will probably get there, but it's going to end up being very nuanced and already it is important to recognize that the word means d…
> It's a hard problem So people say. I’m not sidestepping the Hard Problem. I am denying it head on. It’s not a trick or a dodge! It’s a considered stance. I'm denying that an idea that has historically resisted crisp definition, and that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy introduces as 'protean', needs to be taken seriously as an essential missing part of AI systems, until someone can explain why. In my view, t…
> needs to be taken seriously as an essential missing part of AI systems, until someone can explain why.
If the transcript is accurate, Karpathy does not actually ever, in this interview, say that AGI is a decade away, or make any concrete claims about how far away AGI is. Patel's title is misleading.
>They don't have enough intelligence, they're not multimodal enough, they can't do computer use and all this stuff. They don't do a lot of the things you've alluded to earlier. They don't have continual learning. You can't just tell them something and they'll remember it. They're cognitively lacking and it's just not working.
>It will take about a decade to work through all of those issues. (2:20)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The interview which I've watched recently with Rich Sutton left me with the impression that AGI is not just a matter of adding more 9s. The interviewer had an idea that he took for granted: that to understand language you have to have a model of the world. LLMs seem to udnerstand language therefore they've trained a model of the world. Sutton rejected the premise immediately. He might be right in being skeptical here…
This world model talk is interesting, and Yann Lecunn has broached on the same topic, but the fact is there are video diffusion models that are quite good at representing the "video world" and even counterfactually and temporally coherently generating a representation of that "world" under different perturbations. In fact you can go to a SOTA LLM today, and it will do quite well at predicting the outcomes of basic co…
So whatever fragment of a model it gains through learning to compress that causal chain of events does not mean much when it cannot generate the actual causal chain.
Just like fusion. It will revolutionize the world, but it's always just ... one more decade away.