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

591–600 of 641 posts

Re: AI 2027

#591

Post by killerstorm »

Vegenoid wrote: post #474

I think we've actually had capable AIs for long enough now to see that this kind of exponential advance to AGI in 2 years is extremely unlikely. The AI we have today isn't radically different from the AI we had in 2023. They are much better at the thing they are good at, and there are some new capabilities that are big, but they are still fundamentally next-token predictors. They still fail at larger scope longer ter…

False. We got from ~0% on SWE-bench to 63%. It's a huge increase of capability in 2 years.

It's like saying that both a baby who can make a few steps and an adult have capability of "walking". It's just wrong.

Re: AI 2027

#592

Post by theragra »

overgard wrote: post #269

Why is any of this seen as desirable? Assuming this is a true prediction it sounds AWFUL. The one thing humans have that makes us human is intelligence. If we turn over thinking to machines, what are we exactly. Are we supposed to just consume mindlessly without work to do?

By authors? They specifically state they don't like many decisions they describe

Re: AI 2027

#593

Post by 2snakes »

visarga wrote: post #583
nfc wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your point about the validation bottleneck becoming dominant over raw compute and simple model scaling. However, I wonder if we're underestimating the potential headroom for sheer efficiency breakthroughs at our levels of intelligence. Von Neumann for example was incredibly brilliant, yet his brain presumably ran on roughly the same power budget as anyone else's. I mean, did he have to eat mountains of f…

I think you are underestimating the context, we all stand on shoulders of giants. Let's think what would happen if kid Einstein, at the young age of 5, was marooned on an island and recovered 30 years later. Will he have any deep insights to dazzle us with? I don't think he would.

Hayy ibn Yaqdhan Nature vs nurture and relative nature of intelligence iirc

Re: AI 2027

#594

Post by zkmon »

Nature is exploring ways for next extinction. It tried nuke piles, but somehow they were just sitting there. Next, it is trying out AI. Nature tricks humans into advancing in ways that are not really needed for them and not compatible with their natural evolution. Nature is applying competition internal to a race that can produce things that are completely unnecessary for the survival of the race, but necessary for its extinction.

Goat: Hey human, why are you creating AI?

Human: Because I can. And I can boast of my greatness. I can use it for money. I can weaponize and us it to dominate and control other humans.

Goat: Why you need all that?

Human: If I don't do it, others will do it and they will dominate me and take away all my stuff. It is not fair.

Goat: So it looks like who-owns-what issue. Did you try not owning stuff?

Nature: Shut up goat. I'm trying to do a big reset here.

Re: AI 2027

#596

Post by [deleted] »

flappyeagle wrote: post #537
arduanika wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you know what he believes? There's hype and there's people calling bullshit. If you work from the assumption that the hype people are genuine, but the people calling bullshit can't be for real, that's how you get a bubble.

Because they are not the same in any way. It’s not a bunch of junior academics, it’s literally including someone who worked at OpenAI

[deleted]

Re: AI 2027

#597

Post by arduanika »

vonneumannstan wrote: post #428
fmap wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I agree that it's good science fiction, but this is still taking it too seriously. All of these "projections" are generalizing from fictional evidence - to borrow a term that's popular in communities that push these ideas. Long before we had deep learning there were people l…

>All of these "projections" are generalizing from fictional evidence - to borrow a term that's popular in communities that push these ideas. This just isn't correct. Daniel and others on the team are experienced world class forecasters. Daniel wrote another version of this in 2021 predicting the AI world in 2026 and was astonishingly accurate. This deserves credence. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6Xgy6CAf2jqHhynHL/…

https://www.wikihow.com/Leave-a-Cult

Re: AI 2027

#598

Post by gwd »

gwd wrote: post #528
fmap wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The idea is, if we don't think of anything more efficient, we'll at least be able to simulate a cat, and then an idiot, and then Einstein, and then something smarter. And since we almost certainly will think of something more efficient than "simulate a human brain", we should expect superintelligence to come much sooner. The problem with this argument is that it's assuming that we're on a linear track to more and m…

> We have multi-paragraph autocomplete that's matching existing texts more and more closely. OK, I think I see where you're coming from. It sounds like what you're saying is: E. LLMs only do multi-paragraph autocomplete; they are and always will be incapable of actual thinking. F. Any approach capable of achieving AGI will be completely different in structure. Who knows if or when this alternate approach will even be…

> E. LLMs only do multi-paragraph autocomplete; they are and always will be incapable of actual thinking.

FWIW, this guy thinks E is true, and that he has a better direction to head in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETZfkkv6V7Y

HN discussion about a related article I didn't read:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43562768

Re: AI 2027

#599

Post by boznz »

boznz wrote: post #521
Vegenoid wrote: post #474

I think we've actually had capable AIs for long enough now to see that this kind of exponential advance to AGI in 2 years is extremely unlikely. The AI we have today isn't radically different from the AI we had in 2023. They are much better at the thing they are good at, and there are some new capabilities that are big, but they are still fundamentally next-token predictors. They still fail at larger scope longer ter…

> we haven't seen the signs of a runaway singularity as some thought was likely. The signs are not there but while we may not be on an exponential curve (which would be difficult to see), we are definitely on a steep upward one which may get steeper or may fizzle out if LLM's can only reach human level 'intelligence' but not surpass it. Original article was a fun read though and 360,000 words shorter than my very sim…

.. I would however add that the ending of my novel was far more exciting.

Re: AI 2027

#600

Post by wkat4242 »

sejje wrote: post #560
danpalmer wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think curing aging is an easy thing anyway. The whole of evolution is basically set up against it. Because it would break evolution itself.

There isn't a single species that has somehow gained infinite lifespans though mutation. I think it's a lot harder to accomplish. I guess a lot of it has to do with degrading DNA (and again, evolution never had to figure out a fix for that because it's a feature not a bug).

Post reply on HN