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

How AGI became the most consequential conspiracy theory of our time

technologyreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 99 posts

Re: How AGI became the most consequential conspiracy theory of our time

#71

Post by HarHarVeryFunny »

solumunus wrote: post #45
foxfired wrote: post #27

I remember when ChatGPT 3.5 was going to be AGI, then 4, then 4o, etc. It's kinda like the dooms day predictions, even if they fail it's ok. Because the next one though, oh that's the real doomsday. I, for one, am waiting for a true AI Scotsman [0]. [0]: https://idiallo.com/byte-size/ai-scotsman

I honestly don’t remember many if any people saying that at all, those would have been extremely fringe positions.

It started with GPT-2 - not sure if OpenAI really believed it, or were just hyping it up, but they initially withheld public release of GPT-2 because it was "too powerful and dangerous"...

Re: How AGI became the most consequential conspiracy theory of our time

#72

Post by Terr_ »

labrador wrote: post #69
chubot wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah totally, not a single mention of Kurzweil in this article. I also read “Age of spiritual machines” in 1999 (in college), and skimmed most of his subsequent books Then Kurzweil became my manager’s peer at Google in 2014 or so (actually 2 managers). I remember he was mocked by a few coworkers (and maybe deservedly so, because they had some mildly funny stories) So I have been wondering with all the AGI talk why Ku…

> Was he vindicated in some sense? No. He's still saying AGI will demand political rights in 2029. Like Geoffrey Hinton, Kurzweil gets a pass because he's brilliant and acomplished. But also like Hinton, he's wrong about this one issue. With Hinton it appears to be fear driving his fantasies. With Kurzwel it's probably over-confidence.

> > Kurzweil’s brand of AGI, which is about merging with machines

> With Kurzwel it's probably over-confidence.

It's his fear of mortality, which also helps explain the "merging" emphasis.

Every new Kurzweil "prediction" involves technologies that are just amazing-enough and the timeline just aggressive-enough that they converge into a future where a guy of Ray Kurzweil's age just manages to hop onto the first departure of the train to immortality.

If y'all have seen any exception to that pattern, please let me know, I'm genuinely curious.

Re: How AGI became the most consequential conspiracy theory of our time

#73

Post by Libidinalecon »

scarmig wrote: post #34

> It’s this myth that’s the root of the AGI conspiracy. A smarter-than-human machine that can do it all is not a technology. It’s a dream, unmoored from reality. So, if you assume that AGI is fake and impossible, it's... A conspiracy. Sure. Though, if you just finished quoting Turing (and folks like von Neumann), who thought it is possible, it would be good form for you to offer some reasoning that it's impossible, w…

The best thing I have ever read is von Neumann's ridiculous ideas and predictions about the weather.

It is the ultimate example of always having to be on guard against argumentum ad verecundiam.

Re: How AGI became the most consequential conspiracy theory of our time

#74

Post by tim333 »

xanderlewis wrote: post #65
tim333 wrote: post #64

The article is kind of silly like someone in the 1800s saying flying machines are a conspiracy theory. I mean obviously not - they were a proposed technology that hasn't been built yet but would in a while. I don't really get the point. I guess it's a discussion point of a sort. Maybe it's like those Weekly World News 'Gay Aliens Found' type headlines that get views for imaginative silliness?

But flying machines are well defined, or at least it's easily possible to come up with a good definition. 'A machine capable of transporting a person from a to b without touching the ground at any point in between', or whatever. For AGI, that's very far from being true.

Well there are paper darts and weather balloons but most people were interested in a powered machine to transport people. Likewise with AGI but I'm guessing most people are thinking of something that can do what people do?

Re: How AGI became the most consequential conspiracy theory of our time

#75

Post by Dylan16807 »

TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #21

> At the core of most definitions you’ll find the idea of a machine that can match humans on a wide range of cognitive tasks. I expect this definition will be proven incorrect eventually. This definition would best be described as a "human level AGI", rather than AGI. AGI is a system that matches a core set of properties, but it's not necessarily tied to capabilities. Theoretically one could create a very small resou…

That definition gives me a headache. If it's not up to the level of a human then it's not "general". If you cut down the resources so much that it drops to cat level, then it's a cut down model related to an AGI model and no more.

Re: How AGI became the most consequential conspiracy theory of our time

#76

Post by nitwit005 »

xanderlewis wrote: post #65
tim333 wrote: post #64

The article is kind of silly like someone in the 1800s saying flying machines are a conspiracy theory. I mean obviously not - they were a proposed technology that hasn't been built yet but would in a while. I don't really get the point. I guess it's a discussion point of a sort. Maybe it's like those Weekly World News 'Gay Aliens Found' type headlines that get views for imaginative silliness?

But flying machines are well defined, or at least it's easily possible to come up with a good definition. 'A machine capable of transporting a person from a to b without touching the ground at any point in between', or whatever. For AGI, that's very far from being true.

People did genuinely struggle to define "useful flying machine", which is why you see the description of the Wright Brother's flight come with so much detail: "first controlled, sustained flight of a powered airplane".

Re: How AGI became the most consequential conspiracy theory of our time

#77

Post by mlyle »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #54
TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #21

> At the core of most definitions you’ll find the idea of a machine that can match humans on a wide range of cognitive tasks. I expect this definition will be proven incorrect eventually. This definition would best be described as a "human level AGI", rather than AGI. AGI is a system that matches a core set of properties, but it's not necessarily tied to capabilities. Theoretically one could create a very small resou…

That’s like Peter Norvig’s definition of AGI [1] which is defined with respect to general purpose digital computers. The general intelligence refers to the foundation model that can be repurposed to many different contexts. I like that definition because it is clear. Currently, AGI is defined in a way where it is truly indistinguishable from superintelligence. I don’t find that helpful. [1] https://www.noemamag.com/a…

I think "being able to do as well as a 50th percentile human who's had a little practice," on a wide range of tasks, is a pretty decent measure.

Yes, that's more versatile than most of us, because most of us are not at or above the median practiced person in a wide range of tasks. But it's not what I think of when I hear "superintelligence," because its performance on any given task is likely still inferior to the best humans.

Re: How AGI became the most consequential conspiracy theory of our time

#78

Post by labrador »

Terr_ wrote: post #72
labrador wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Was he vindicated in some sense? No. He's still saying AGI will demand political rights in 2029. Like Geoffrey Hinton, Kurzweil gets a pass because he's brilliant and acomplished. But also like Hinton, he's wrong about this one issue. With Hinton it appears to be fear driving his fantasies. With Kurzwel it's probably over-confidence.

> > Kurzweil’s brand of AGI, which is about merging with machines > With Kurzwel it's probably over-confidence. It's his fear of mortality , which also helps explain the "merging" emphasis. Every new Kurzweil "prediction" involves technologies that are just amazing-enough and the timeline just aggressive-enough that they converge into a future where a guy of Ray Kurzweil's age just manages to hop onto the first depar…

Yes, I think you're right. I forgot he was a leading transhumanist.

Re: How AGI became the most consequential conspiracy theory of our time

#79

Post by fragmede »

mlyle wrote: post #77
dr_dshiv wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s like Peter Norvig’s definition of AGI [1] which is defined with respect to general purpose digital computers. The general intelligence refers to the foundation model that can be repurposed to many different contexts. I like that definition because it is clear. Currently, AGI is defined in a way where it is truly indistinguishable from superintelligence. I don’t find that helpful. [1] https://www.noemamag.com/a…

I think "being able to do as well as a 50th percentile human who's had a little practice," on a wide range of tasks, is a pretty decent measure. Yes, that's more versatile than most of us, because most of us are not at or above the median practiced person in a wide range of tasks. But it's not what I think of when I hear "superintelligence," because its performance on any given task is likely still inferior to the be…

That seems like a personal definition for super intelligence. I don't think I'm alone in assuming super intelligence needs to be greater than all humans for it to be considered super vs "pretty good intelligence".

Re: How AGI became the most consequential conspiracy theory of our time

#80

Post by [deleted] »

Terr_ wrote: post #67
scarmig wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it makes you angry that people want to work to build AGI--people who have thought about it a lot more than you--you can't convince them to stop by repeatedly yelling "I don't think it's possible, you're a fool!" No more than yelling "electricity is conspiracy thinking/Satan's plaything!" repeatedly would have stopped engineers in the 19th century from studying and building with it.

> If it makes you angry that people want to work to build AGI What's this, a second straw-man? So quickly after the first? TFA never condemned invention or hard work, nor does it agree with the "doomers" who consider the target-invention to be fundamentally bad. At most it's a critique of a set of beliefs/rationalizations plus choices made by investors. > makes you angry [...] people who have thought about it a lot m…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN