My AI Timelines Have Sped Up (Again)
alexirpan.com
My AI Timelines Have Sped Up (Again)
1–10 of 99 posts
Re: My AI Timelines Have Sped Up (Again)
#2Title should be: " My AI Timelines haven't sped up, but now I think there's a 10% chance of AI dominance in 5 years"
His AI timelines haven't sped up, only clarified
Re: My AI Timelines Have Sped Up (Again)
#3For fck's sake, please stop using this font. I know Apple started the trend but even they went back to sane alternatives. The narrow lines of this font are a torture to the eyes.
Re: My AI Timelines Have Sped Up (Again)
#4Title should be: " My AI Timelines haven't sped up, but now I think there's a 10% chance of AI dominance in 5 years" His AI timelines haven't sped up, only clarified
It’s also barely clarified and has a ton of false precision problems, which I’d expect a researcher who works in the field not to have. Why 10% vs 20% or 15%, no real reason, just vibes, but it gets clicks.
Re: My AI Timelines Have Sped Up (Again)
#5Title should be: " My AI Timelines haven't sped up, but now I think there's a 10% chance of AI dominance in 5 years" His AI timelines haven't sped up, only clarified
It’s also barely clarified and has a ton of false precision problems, which I’d expect a researcher who works in the field not to have. Why 10% vs 20% or 15%, no real reason, just vibes, but it gets clicks.
He can "feel the AGI".
Re: My AI Timelines Have Sped Up (Again)
#6[deleted]
Re: My AI Timelines Have Sped Up (Again)
#7I'm no AI expert, I don't have a lot of domain knowledge but what irks me about reading through this entire blog post is the idea that we are hinging on a definition of AGI that apparently accounts for 95% (!) of "economically valuable work" while basically not talking _at all_ about the trades. No mention of construction, manual labour, mechanics, welders, painters, nothing!
Is the author trying to say that all that work falls into the 5% left over after you replace the stock brokers, programmers, artists, etc.?
I understand no offence is meant, but this feels extremely naive. At best the work programmers do is in the minority of "economical valuable" work that we strongly rely on for our world economies to keep chugging along.
Quick and dirty searches show that some 12% of employed people are in healthcare in the USA, 9% in leisure and hospitality, and 2% in education. 23% of people in the USA are employed in economically valuable work that is very personal, and very difficult for technology to fully replace.
Sorry if I'm rambling, I think I just did not enjoy the complete lack of mention of blue-collar workers here. I don't think I'm yet in the camp betting on AGI coming out of the woodworks in the next few decades.
Re: My AI Timelines Have Sped Up (Again)
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s also barely clarified and has a ton of false precision problems, which I’d expect a researcher who works in the field not to have. Why 10% vs 20% or 15%, no real reason, just vibes, but it gets clicks.
He can "feel the AGI".
It's right there talking to birds sent to spy on us.
Re: My AI Timelines Have Sped Up (Again)
#9I'm glad an AI researcher is posting their personal thoughts. As a fellow researcher and developer in the AI space, I conceptualize AGI as a self-domain-learning entity that is able to manage itself and understand how to affect/intervene its actions and effectual consequences (humans don't reach this on a general level until early teens to mid twenties, if ever). Walking is a solid example of this at a specific level. Singleton objective functions and patterns across probabilities of states are insufficient -- there needs to be ongoing interpretation and architecture extrapolation.
In short -- current AI approaches are great at interpolation and still perform poorly at most extrapolation exercises that a human can take on.
Re: My AI Timelines Have Sped Up (Again)
#10I'm no AI expert, I don't have a lot of domain knowledge but what irks me about reading through this entire blog post is the idea that we are hinging on a definition of AGI that apparently accounts for 95% (!) of "economically valuable work" while basically not talking _at all_ about the trades. No mention of construction, manual labour, mechanics, welders, painters, nothing! Is the author trying to say that all that…
I totally agree with this - it always seems like sort of a weird omission when people talk about AGI doing 95% of work without any discussion of robotics. It seems very obvious that you need bipedal robots (or a lot of different types of robots) to hit that number. Do these AGI predictions assume that we'll have those by the time they hit AGI? Or is the word "knowledge" supposed to be implied before the work "work"? Either way, it's clearly inaccurate to say that AI on its own can do all productive work without physical embodiment.