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

AI 2027

ai-2027.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 641 posts

Re: AI 2027

#551

Post by bronco21016 »

torginus wrote: post #377
stego-tech wrote: post #279

It’s good science fiction, I’ll give it that. I think getting lost in the weeds over technicalities ignores the crux of the narrative: even if this doesn’t lead to AGI, at the very least it’s likely the final “warning shot” we’ll get before it’s suddenly and irreversibly here. The problems it raises - alignment, geopolitics, lack of societal safeguards - are all real, and happening now (just replace “AGI” with “corpo…

The most amusing thing about is the unshakable belief that any part of humanity will be able to build a single nuclear reactor by 2027 to power datacenters, let alone a network of them.

According to Wikipedia, China had 22 under construction as of 2023 for 24 GW of power. They have a goal of 150 by 2035.

I think they'll probably be able to finish at least 1-2 by 2027.

Re: AI 2027

#552

Post by brookst »

balamatom wrote: post #367
brookst wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I looked but I couldn’t find any evidence that “occultism” comes from encryption of heretical ideas. It seems to have been popularized in renaissance France to describe the study of hidden forces. I think you may be hallucinating here.

Where exactly did you look?

Google, Wikipedia, kagi. Now, please tell me your source.

Re: AI 2027

#553

Post by dangus »

EMIRELADERO wrote: post #548
dangus wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like you’d have to prove the inverse. The threshold would be “produce anything that isn’t identical or a minor transfiguration of input training data.” In my experience my AI assistant in my code editor can’t do a damn thing that isn’t widely documented and sometimes botches tasks that are thoroughly documented (such as hallucinating parameters names that don’t exist). I can witness this when I reach the edge o…

That's creativity, not intelligence. LLMs can be intelligent while having very little (or even none at all) creativity. I don't believe one necessarily requires the other.

That’s a garbage cop-out. Intelligence without creativity is not what AI companies are promising to deliver.

Intelligence without creativity is like selling dictionaries.

Re: AI 2027

#555

Post by EMIRELADERO »

dangus wrote: post #553
EMIRELADERO wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's creativity, not intelligence. LLMs can be intelligent while having very little (or even none at all) creativity. I don't believe one necessarily requires the other.

That’s a garbage cop-out. Intelligence without creativity is not what AI companies are promising to deliver. Intelligence without creativity is like selling dictionaries.

That was an extreme example to illustrate the concept. My point is that reduced/little creativity (which is what the current models have) is not indicative of a total lack of intelligence.

Re: AI 2027

#556

Post by nyarlathotep_ »

JFingleton wrote: post #539
wruza wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

programming entire AAA video games Even this is questionable, cause we're seeing it making forms and solving leetcodes, but no llm yet created a new approach, reduced existing unnecessary complexity (which we created mountains of), made something truly new in general. All they seem to do is rehash of millions of "mainstream" works, and AAA isn't mainstream. Cranking up the parameter count or the time of beating aroun…

"They are stuck in 2020 office jobs and weekend open source tech, programming-wise." You say that like it's nothing special! Honestly I'm still in awe at the ability of modern LLMs to do any kind of programming. It's weird how something that would have been science fiction 5 years ago is now normalised.

All true, but keep in mind the biggest boosters of LLMs have been explicitly selling it as a replacement for human intellectual labor--"don't learn to code anymore", "we need UBI", "muh agents" and the like.

Re: AI 2027

#557

Post by snackernews »

> Other companies pour money into their own giant datacenters, hoping to keep pace.

> estimates that the globally available AI-relevant compute will grow by a factor of 10x by December 2027 (2.25x per year) relative to March 2025 to 100M H100e.

Meanwhile, back in the real March 2025, Microsoft and Google slash datacenter investment.

https://theconversation.com/microsoft-cuts-data-centre-plans...

Re: AI 2027

#558

Post by Bjorkbat »

AlphaAndOmega0 wrote: post #123
superconduct123 wrote: post #115

Why are the biggest AI predictions always made by people who aren't deep in the tech side of it? Or actually trying to use the models day-to-day...

Daniel Kokotajlo released the (excellent) 2021 forecast. He was then hired by OpenAI, and not at liberty to speak freely, until he quit in 2024. He's part of the team making this forecast. The others include: Eli Lifland, a superforecaster who is ranked first on RAND’s Forecasting initiative. You can read more about him and his forecasting team here. He cofounded and advises AI Digest and co-created TextAttack, an ad…

Minor pet-peeve of mine, I really don't like the term "superforecaster". First time I encountered it was in association with some guy who was making predictions a year or two out.

Which to be fair it actually is kind of impressive if someone can make accurate predictions about the future that far head, but only because people are really bad at predicting the future.

Implicitly when I hear "superforecaster" I think they're someone that's really good at predicting the future, but deeper inspection often reveals that "the future" is constrained to the next 2 years. Beyond that they tend to be as bad as any other "futurist".

Re: AI 2027

#560

Post by sejje »

danpalmer wrote: post #240
wkat4242 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't the covid significantly reduce trial times? I thought that was such a success that they continued on the same foot.

The other reply has better info on covid specifically, but also consider that this refers to "immortality drugs". How long do we have to test those to conclude that they do in fact provide "immortality"? Now sure, they don't actually mean immortality, and we don't need to test forever to conclude they extend life, but we probably do have to test for years to get good data on whether a generic life extension drug is e…

Curing aging might be immediately obvious--like old folks have all their diminished capacity restored, and they are more similar to their physical peak.

Old people may have a lot of reason to volunteer to use these.

I think we will discover that our body can reset itself via some trigger mechanism. It built us once, the code isn't gone. It can do it again.

Post reply on HN