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

AI 2040: Plan A

ai-2040.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 567 posts

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#541

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

layla5alive wrote: post #535
disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> with previous RL-systems Most human systems are much, much, much more complicated than most closed world games (which is where RL approaches have seen massive success, mostly through self-play). Like LLMs are great, but I honestly can't see us getting actual general intelligence out of them.

They already possess general intelligence by many metrics. Sure they miss a few, but that's nitpicky and goalpost shifty - lots of humans make errors of all sorts as well, or incur brain damage limiting them in one or a few areas of intelligence - we don't then say they are not general intelligence anymore. I think maybe you mean superintelligence, which is a more fair critique.

> They already possess general intelligence by many metrics.

Can you share the metrics you are using for this assessment?

They are really powerful tools, but a quick glance at their thinking tokens (which is a bad name, tbh) rapidly disabuses me of the notion that they are general intelligences.

They possess large amounts of crystallised intelligence (i.e. they have a lot of knowledge), but their fluid intelligence is definitely lower than the human median.

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#542

Post by BurningFrog »

fulafel wrote: post #423
BurningFrog wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nor do I think a 74% unemployment rate is even remotely possible 250 years of constant automation has never produced large scale unemployment, despite obsoleting everyone's jobs several times over.

It has. For example mechanization of argiculture in places where it didnt coincide with a manufacturing boom (latin america, india, africa) resulted in shantytowns and long term unemployment.

Those are pretty dysfunctional economical and political systems.

In the industrialized world, old professions disappear all the time, and are replaced with new ones. I saw somewhere that it's about 2% per year.

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#543

Post by kypro »

somebodythere wrote: post #163
kypro wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I took you back to 2020 and said in a little over 5 years there will basically be no human coders writing code anymore you'd almost certainly not believe me. And similar things can be said about many technologies in recent history – cars replacing the horse, first flight to man on the moon, even the creation of early internet to its mass adoption. You're talking generally a decade or 2 for society to completely ch…

The thing about exponentials is if you admit 60%, it's pretty easy to admit 95%.

That's a fair push back.

For a specific technology to become viable, you often need progress in several individual technologies to occur. Some of these will be exponential and surprise us, but many will see slower progress.

Either way, I suspect progress in robotics will be slower than AI, but I also think we'll see a lot of investment in robotics over the next decade given that AI opens up a lot of new potential applications for robotics.

I suspect any task that doesn't require extreme battery life or extreme dexterity will be doable by robots much sooner than most people think today. I think we could have decent-ish humanoid robots within a decade – robots that can prepare food, clean hotel rooms, empty bins, etc. I think Elon's bet on Optimus is quite likely to be viewed as very ahead of the curve with time.

However, it will take much longer for robots to do everything a human body can, but then most jobs don't require we push the physical limits of human body.

That's why I think 60% is reasonable. And even then I'm not saying it will happen, I just don't think that's a bad bet if given even odds.

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#544

Post by aioproductos »

taurath wrote: post #267

This is religious fervor folks, as AI 2027 was. I grew up in evangelical christianity, and to them the end of the world is just around the corner, the same way it has been since I was a small child and likely will be when we are all gone. This isn't science. This isn't hypothesis experiment record results. This is very expensive astrology, shiny rock collecting, ritualistic meaning-making and self-justification. Yall…

[flagged]

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#545

Post by bwanab »

ToValueFunfetti wrote: post #484
bwanab wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I can't predict the future, but if it were a bet on Kalshi I'd be willing to put my money on the AI won't make the list side.

This seems out of line with what you were saying above. Do you mean you would put money on a position less favorable than 50/50? What do you consider the likelihood such that you think you can announce it to be false today? 99%? I'd happily offer 30 to 1 odds on this today and add a 3x buffer for you up to $1000 of my dollars if you're serious.

I'm confused. In the original comment I pointed out that the article claims AI is a major topic when polls show that isn't the case. I still believe that in 2028 AI will not be a major topic as shown by polls and voting behavior.

I'm not sure how I'd formulate the bet, but maybe it could be "as of election day 2028, AI will not be a top five concern mentioned in the most recent open-ended poll by Gallup polling the American public. This bet will not be decided by a poll in which AI is specifically mentioned in the polling question."

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#546

Post by fulafel »

BurningFrog wrote: post #542
fulafel wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has. For example mechanization of argiculture in places where it didnt coincide with a manufacturing boom (latin america, india, africa) resulted in shantytowns and long term unemployment.

Those are pretty dysfunctional economical and political systems. In the industrialized world, old professions disappear all the time, and are replaced with new ones. I saw somewhere that it's about 2% per year.

In a post-AGI scenario, a tech booster POV could be seeing the left behind parts of the populace the same way.

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#547

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

Leynos wrote: post #476
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Even if one throws that aside, spending time exploring and building with the most state of the art LLMs is just as instructive. I'm watching the implementation - whats working is ML models trained on specific domains (not much different than 5+ years ago), and whats not working is a general model that humanity can let go to work on its own. Sit in front and observe ideas turn to the samey intellectual, high-syllab…

While there are some coding focused models (composer, for example), the majority of frontier models are pitched as general purpose. The coding harnesses for Claude and GPT are even being repurposed as general purpose knowledge work harnesses.

No, you're right of course, but I have a feeling it's much easier to sell a system with a clear goal, like "this LLM generates code" or "this LLM solves math problems". Even if the underlying model is a general purpose one. I think there's always a question, when one has a product, of "what does it do?". "This thing does everything you want it to" is not a great way to sell something.

More to the point, even models marketed as general purpose are clearly trained on specific tasks. That is, the AI companies want to promote their systems as general purpose but they also want to make them good at specific tasks, because that supports their marketing story, that those are general-purpose systems that are so powerful they can even do maths and science.

Or maybe code, maths, and (maybe) science are just the things they find it easy to train their models on, for different reasons and in different ways. You can also get a feel about the things they have tried to do and failed, e.g. real-world autonomy isn't really working (or not working yet, who knows), so OpenAI is not trying to sell an embodied generalist agent say, that can clean your hose, do your laundry and teach your kids maths and science on the side.

I mean even generating text is a very narrow task, in the general sense, compared to all the things that humans can do (never mind other animals) it's just that we use text so much and for so many things that there's an endless list of applications for a text generator; as we have all found out.

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#548

Post by voidmain »

sometimelurker wrote: post #322
voidmain wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If AGI means that AI+robotics can robustly substitute for human labor, and robots are cheaper and faster to build than humans, then (a) anyone ruthless enough can zerg rush and defeat any nations that don't discard humans, (b) no one without a massive robot army will be needed in any way by their rulers. If this isn't a recipe for a horrific outcome, what is?

> defeat any nations that don't discard humans AGI doesn't do away with nuclear MAD, it just messes with economics and makes many people temporarily jobless. Temporarily because in a literal sense RLVR needs verification to train off of, and a lot of jobs cant be easily checked if theyre done. this includes AI safety people, preschool teachers, psychologists, and probably a lot more, including most of their bosses

Nuclear weapons are mostly a threat to cities, and a zerg rush build would just not build any.

I think that if all we get is skill cloning for formally verifiable tasks, that is not "AGI" and does not doom us. It probably won't even doom software engineers, because their whole job is also not formally verifiable. I don't trust that the next ten trillion dollars of AI research won't give us data efficient continual learning and agency on par with humans, which is what I would call AGI.

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#549

Post by ToValueFunfetti »

bwanab wrote: post #545
ToValueFunfetti wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems out of line with what you were saying above. Do you mean you would put money on a position less favorable than 50/50? What do you consider the likelihood such that you think you can announce it to be false today? 99%? I'd happily offer 30 to 1 odds on this today and add a 3x buffer for you up to $1000 of my dollars if you're serious.

I'm confused. In the original comment I pointed out that the article claims AI is a major topic when polls show that isn't the case. I still believe that in 2028 AI will not be a major topic as shown by polls and voting behavior. I'm not sure how I'd formulate the bet, but maybe it could be "as of election day 2028, AI will not be a top five concern mentioned in the most recent open-ended poll by Gallup polling the A…

Not clear on where you're confused. The article does not claim this is the state today, it says in 2028- did you misread? In any event I think this is entirely plausible, say >9%, based on trendlines and the fact that I hear about this constantly already- two of the candidates in my primary had a position on this and I'm not exactly in SF. I'm prepared to hand you as much as $1k in the 91% of worlds where this doesn't happen in exchange for 30x as much (eg. 30k) in the 9% of worlds where it does. EV for me is .91 * -1 + .09 * 30 = +1.79. You claim you can say already today that this is false; I assume that means you're >99% certain. EV for you is then .99 * 1 + .01 * -30 = +0.69 (nice). Thus there is a mutually beneficial trade at the >3x your position and I don't normally do this, but you brought up your willingness to bet so I figured I'd offer.

I didn't think it was possible you misread- you had like 5 replies calling this out, but I recall them being gray and maybe you have showdead disabled- but don't feel obliged to commit if your real probability is 97% for this.

This term:

>This bet will not be decided by a poll in which AI is specifically mentioned in the polling question.

I cannot honor. In the >9% of worlds where you are wrong, any poll that excludes AI is necessarily heavily biased against me. Better to pick a particular poll.

Re: AI 2040: Plan A

#550

Post by foobiekr »

xtracto wrote: post #99
foobiekr wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Soviet Union systematically ignored the BWC. There's tons of evidence.

Isn't the US famous for not even signing a lot of world treaties like climate accords and others? This is an interesting subject and conversation, but it's moot having it in these culture-centric forums. I wonder if there are Russians discussing plausible scenarios in Vkontakte groups, or Chinese doing the same in whatever Alibaba group sites they use. The problem is that we are all skewed by our media, our ideas and…

The Russians signed it and then completely ignored the agreement.

That is an objective fact and has nothing to do with the rest of the cultural relativism you're engaging in.

Whataboutism about the US _not signing_ things is also irrelevant.

The whole AI treaty discussion is about a treaty countries will _actually sign_ and the relevance of Russia cheating on the BWC is that the signatures of some countries are absolutely worthless, which _is_ relevant.

Post reply on HN