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

AGI is not possible even in 10 years

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 106 posts

Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years

#91

Post by beAbU »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #75

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"

The winner will be the one that announces "we have AGI" based on their own definition, and the rest of the world actually agrees with them.

The upside of being right is massive, but the downside of prematurely announcing AGI only for the rest of the world to disagree with your definition is probably tremendously large.

It's a bit of a catch-22

Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years

#93

Post by RA_Fisher »

charlie-83 wrote: post #17
RA_Fisher wrote: post #5

The paid models are already smarter than the vast majority of people.

If this is true then almost all of the jobs in the world would already be replaced by AI. Sure, the model might be better than most people at lots of things but there are still tasks that human children find easy and AI struggles with. I wouldn't call being better at something than humans being "smarter" than them; if you do, calculators must be smarter than humans since they have been better at adding up numbers tha…

> If this is true then almost all of the jobs in the world would already be replaced by AI.

We have to account for human inertia. With us people, very little completely changes over night.

Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years

#94

Post by RA_Fisher »

rvnx wrote: post #27
charlie-83 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this is true then almost all of the jobs in the world would already be replaced by AI. Sure, the model might be better than most people at lots of things but there are still tasks that human children find easy and AI struggles with. I wouldn't call being better at something than humans being "smarter" than them; if you do, calculators must be smarter than humans since they have been better at adding up numbers tha…

For text and image-based tasks they are infinitely better than a human. What they lack are arms to interact with the physical world, but once this is done this is a giant leap forward (example: they will obviously be able to do experiments to discover new molecules by translating their steps-by-steps reasoning to physical actions, to build more optimized cars, etc). For now human is smarter in some real-world or edge…

> super specialist in a specific science

I’m a super specialist in statistics and GPT5 and Gemini know much more than me about the topic.

Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years

#95

Post by RA_Fisher »

gambiting wrote: post #68
rvnx wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For text and image-based tasks they are infinitely better than a human. What they lack are arms to interact with the physical world, but once this is done this is a giant leap forward (example: they will obviously be able to do experiments to discover new molecules by translating their steps-by-steps reasoning to physical actions, to build more optimized cars, etc). For now human is smarter in some real-world or edge…

>>For text and image-based tasks they are infinitely better than a human. Sometimes. When the stars align and you roll the dice the right way. I'm currently using ChatGPT 5.1 to put together a list of meals for the upcoming week, it comes up with a list(very good one!), then it asks if I want a list of ingredients, I say yes, and the ingredients are completely bollocks. Like it adds things which are not in any recipe…

Sorry about the frustration. I agree they’re far from perfect (like us). They have habits, bc they model us.

Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years

#96

Post by RA_Fisher »

rowanseymour wrote: post #19
RA_Fisher wrote: post #5

The paid models are already smarter than the vast majority of people.

At analyzing and reproducing language.. words, code etc sure because at their core they are still statistical models of language. But there seems to be growing consensus that intelligence requires modeling more than words.

When models become sufficiently sophisticated, they practically become the phenomenon they’re modeling (by limit).

Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years

#97

Post by RA_Fisher »

forinti wrote: post #16
RA_Fisher wrote: post #5

The paid models are already smarter than the vast majority of people.

But they don't have agency and who would trust them unattended anyway (at their current capabilities)?

They’re urgently being given agency by companies and people.

Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years

#98

Post by RA_Fisher »

rvnx wrote: post #9
RA_Fisher wrote: post #5

The paid models are already smarter than the vast majority of people.

Not sure why you are being downvoted. Seems like lot of people with high ego are not ready to accept the truth that a human has way less knowledge than a world encyclopedia with infinite and practically perfect memory.

Yeah, I think a lot of people are very insecure. I’m genuinely sorry for them. I think the best thing to do is to derive utility from AI (to mitigate the costs).

Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years

#99

Post by RA_Fisher »

gambiting wrote: post #23
rvnx wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why you are being downvoted. Seems like lot of people with high ego are not ready to accept the truth that a human has way less knowledge than a world encyclopedia with infinite and practically perfect memory.

>>Seems like lot of people with high ego are not ready to accept the truth that a human has way less knowledge than a world encyclopedia. Well, thank you for editing your own comment and adding that last bit, because it really is the crux of the issue and the reason why OP is being downvoted. Having all of the worlds knowledge is not the same as being smart.

Smart is being able to produce knowledge quickly. I’m not sure how it could be denied that AIs are capable of producing knowledge quickly (obviously extremely quickly).

Re: AGI is not possible even in 10 years

#100

Post by [deleted] »

ACCount37 wrote: post #82
keernan wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Again: why can't any of that run on a sufficiently capable computer? 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?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN