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

The "AI 2027" Scenario: How realistic is it?

garymarcus.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 242 posts

Re: The "AI 2027" Scenario: How realistic is it?

#71

Post by amarcheschi »

Aurornis wrote: post #52

Some useful context from Scott Alexander's blog reveals that the authors don't actually believe the 2027 target: > Do we really think things will move this fast? Sort of no - between the beginning of the project last summer and the present, Daniel’s median for the intelligence explosion shifted from 2027 to 2028. We keep the scenario centered around 2027 because it’s still his modal prediction (and because it would b…

The other writings from Scott Alexander on scientific racism are also another good point imho

Re: The "AI 2027" Scenario: How realistic is it?

#72

Post by throw310822 »

baxtr wrote: post #65
throw310822 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The expression "canary in the coal mine" means "early warning sign" because miners used to bring canaries into mines as probes to check for toxic gases- the canaries died first. The joke- or at least as I interpreted it- is that Gary Marcus himself would be the literal canary- i.e. he would literally die.

But why would he die with AGI? I don’t get it :D

I guess simply out of spite?

Re: The "AI 2027" Scenario: How realistic is it?

#74

Post by justlikereddit »

My experience with all semi-generalist AI(image gen, video gen, code gen, text gen) is that our current effort is going to let 2027 AI do everything a human can at a competence level below what is actually useful.

You'll ve able to cherry pick an example where AI runs a grocery store autonomously for two days, and it will be very impressive(tm), but when practically implemented it gives away the entire store for free on day 3.

Re: The "AI 2027" Scenario: How realistic is it?

#75

Post by ipython »

baggy_trough wrote: post #41
ipython wrote: post #25

If we have concerns about unregulated power of AI systems, not to worry - the US is set to ban regulations on “artificial intelligence systems or models” for ten years if the budget bill that just passed the house is enacted. Attempts at submitting it as a separate submission just get flagged - so I’ll link to it here. See pages 292-294: https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hr1/BILLS-119hr1rh.pdf

That is not true. It bans regulation at the state and local level, not at the federal level.

Ok. From the party of “states rights” that’s a bit hypocritical of them. I mean- they applauded Dodds which basically did the exact opposite of this- forcing states to regulate abortion rather than a uniform federal standard.

Re: The "AI 2027" Scenario: How realistic is it?

#76

Post by sveme »

marcosdumay wrote: post #44
sveme wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's actually my favourite answer to the Fermi paradox: when AI and robot development becomes sufficiently advanced and concentrated in the hands of a few, then the economy will collapse completely as everyone will be out of jobs, leading ultimately to AIs and robots out of a job - they only matter if there are still people buying services from them. People then return to sustenance farming, with a highly reduced p…

> my favourite answer to the Fermi paradox So, to be clear, you are saying you imagine the odds of any kind of intelligent life escaping that, or getting into that situation and ever evolving in a way where it can reach space again, or just not being interested in robots, or being interested on doing space research despite the robots, or anything else that would make it not apply are lower than 0.000000000001%? EDIT:…

Might I have taken the potential for complete economic collapse because no one's got a paying job any more and billionaires are just sitting there, surrounded by their now useless robots, to the too extreme?

Re: The "AI 2027" Scenario: How realistic is it?

#79

Post by HPsquared »

kokanee wrote: post #54

> Everyone else either performs a charade of doing their job—leaders still leading, managers still managing—or relaxes and collects an incredibly luxurious universal basic income. For me, this was the most difficult part to believe. I don't see any reason to think that the U.S. leadership (public and private) is incentivized to spend resources to placate the masses. They will invest in protecting themselves from the…

Most of the budget already goes towards placating the masses, and that's an absolutely massive fraction of GDP already. It's just a bit further along the same line. Also most real work is already done by machines, people just tinker around the edges and play various games with each other.

Re: The "AI 2027" Scenario: How realistic is it?

#80

Post by no_wizard »

KaiserPro wrote: post #21

Its a shame that your standard futurologist always the most fancyful. Talks of exponentials unabated by physics or social problems. As soon as AI starts to "properly" affect the economy, it will cause huge unemployment. Most of the financial world is based on an economy with people spending cash. If they are unemployed, there is no cash. Financing works because banks "print" money, that is, they make up money and loa…

Why wouldn't AI simply be a new enabler, like most other tools? We're not talking about true sentient human-like thought here, these things will have limitations, both foreseen and unforeseen, that only a human will be able to close the gap on.

The companies that fire workers and replace them with AI are short sighted. Eventually, smarter companies will realize its a force multiplier and will drive a hiring boom.

Absent sentient AI, there will always be gaps and things humans will need to fill, both foreseen and unforeseen.

I think in the short term, there will be pain, but overall in the long term, humans will still be gainfully employed, it won't per se look like it does now, much like we saw the general adoption of the computer in the workplace, resources get shifted and eventually everyone adjusts to the new norms.

What would be nice is this time around when there is a big shift, is workers uniting to capture more of the forthcoming productivity gains than in previous eras. A separate topic, worth thinking about none the less.

Post reply on HN