81–90 of 106 posts
This is slop right? >This isn’t a minor gap; it’s a fundamental limitation. >His timeline? At least a decade, probably much longer. >What does that mean? Simply throwing more computing power and data at current models isn’t working anymore. >His timeline for truly useful agents? About ten years.
"AGI is not possible"
combined with
"Does this mean AI progress will stall? Absolutely not."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what are the limitations of the machines they run on? We're yet to find any process at all that can't be computed with a Turing machine. Why do you expect that "intelligence" is a sudden outlier? Do you have an actual reason to expect that?
>We're yet to find any process at all that can't be computed with a Turing machine. Life. Consciousness. A soul. Imagination. Reflection. Emotions.
I can't help but perceive this as pseudo-profound bullshit. "Real soul and real imagination cannot run on a computer" is a canned "profound" statement with no substance to it whatsoever.
If a hunk of wet meat the size of a melon can do it, then why not a server rack full of nanofabricated silicon?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what are the limitations of the machines they run on? We're yet to find any process at all that can't be computed with a Turing machine. Why do you expect that "intelligence" is a sudden outlier? Do you have an actual reason to expect that?
Is everything really just computation? Gravity is (or can be) the result of a Turing machine churning away somewhere?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've read this multiple times and disagree. If I had an AGI that designs me a safe, small and cheap fusion reactor, of course I would be interested in that. My intelligence is intrinsically limited by my biology. The only way to really scale it up is to wire stuff into my brain, and I'd prefer an AGI over that every day.
I get the idea. But if I can't understand how and why the fusion reactor is safe, small and cheap, I wouldn't consider it safe. Very much the same way that I don't take Claude Code's changes to my code without understanding what it does. Augmenting my intelligence is non-negotiable. I want to be in control. It is the classic "trust but verify". And I need my own intelligence to verify.
If an AI is advanced enough to design mass production ready fusion reactors, I can't help but feel that the "human in charge of that AI" quickly becomes fully redundant. There is nothing that human can do that the AI itself can't do faster, better and cheaper.
I think the best take in AGI is Edsger Dijkstra's: “The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.” I am not interested in computers that have their own intelligence but I do want computers that increase my own intelligence.
So that quote doesn't reconcile the extraordinary claims of one side with the skepticism of the other.
And also, no disrespect to Dijkstra, but that sentiment is a bit shortsighted. If we could make computers think, it would have a profound impact on humanity. This is why there is so much excitement around this. We've been imagining this scenario for centuries, and we hope that this time around we can finally crack it. So comparing that achievement with something we can produce with classical technology is... uninspiring? Underwhelming? Selling ourselves short? I can't quite put it into words, but the possibility of answering that question would certainly be very interesting.
[flagged]
Could you please make your substantive points without breaking the site guidelines? They include: " When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"Meaningless and fruitless" is a better term.
AGI is shorthand for what people are worried about. i.e. The singularity and taking all the jobs. But you don't need perfect AGI for that.
The most interesting thing in this whole picture is not AGI, it's how the collective intelligence works. CEOs claim the AGI is near because that's how they manipulate the public. But the public knows that it's only a manipulation. So how come the manipulation is still possible?
I keep reading of an "AI race" but like "AGI" the meaning is unclear, namely the definition of "win", "lose" or "tie" For example, a "space race" might be "won" by the first participant to reach space, or to reach the moon Is it possible to have a "race" without a time limit or a finish line or some way to determine the "winner"
We don't even have an agreed measure for it, that's how far away we are. Is there an RFC being developed for AGI?
It feels like any time scale on AGI is basically just made up. Since no one has any idea of how to get there, how could you possibly estimate how long it will take? We could stumble on some secret technique that unlocks AGI tomorrow or it could be literally impossible. You might as well ask how long until humans can cast magic spells.
We might start by trying to define what AGI exactly is. It's an elusive goal.