We need superknowledge before superintelligence
1–10 of 16 posts
Re: We need superknowledge before superintelligence
#2This is just blatant self-promotion. I'm not a fan of Google either, but running my last 5 searches through Exa I'm not even getting DuckDuckGo-quality responses. And you're advertising yourself in the corner, patting your own back in blogposts, ushering me towards a pricing page and telling me scary stories before I go.
Maybe we should stop super-washing things and sell products on their literal merit. Google isn't the premier search provider because they're "super" anything, they're successful because they're free and get out of your way.
Re: We need superknowledge before superintelligence
#3This is just blatant self-promotion. I'm not a fan of Google either, but running my last 5 searches through Exa I'm not even getting DuckDuckGo-quality responses. And you're advertising yourself in the corner, patting your own back in blogposts, ushering me towards a pricing page and telling me scary stories before I go. Maybe we should stop super-washing things and sell products on their literal merit. Google isn't…
Also, the current AI advancements result from walking away from knowledge-semantic-logic AI methodologies into more statistics-generative approaches. This is also a result of those methodologies not working properly because of the unsolvable problem of infinite knowledge = infinite space (a HD/compute unsolvable problem) // Infinite divisibility / synthesis of knowledge (also a physical/compute/HD unsolvable problem. Right?
Re: We need superknowledge before superintelligence
#4This is just blatant self-promotion. I'm not a fan of Google either, but running my last 5 searches through Exa I'm not even getting DuckDuckGo-quality responses. And you're advertising yourself in the corner, patting your own back in blogposts, ushering me towards a pricing page and telling me scary stories before I go. Maybe we should stop super-washing things and sell products on their literal merit. Google isn't…
[deleted]
Re: We need superknowledge before superintelligence
#5> "We’ll soon have near-AGI intelligences (GPT-5)"
Does anyone technical believe GPT-5 will be even remotely close to anything which has even a vague resemblance to AGI?
Re: We need superknowledge before superintelligence
#6What does this company need an all-seeing eye for? Directory listings of every building and recursive search on the long-tail of typical search engine blind spots don't seem profitable enough on their own.
Re: We need superknowledge before superintelligence
#7Fascinating take, had never heard this term. Totally makes sense that intelligence/logic without access to peak information will keep spitting out subpar answers.
Re: We need superknowledge before superintelligence
#8clever take on reasoning vs. retrieval. the API is pretty clean, though some searches are still just ok.
Re: We need superknowledge before superintelligence
#9This is just blatant self-promotion. I'm not a fan of Google either, but running my last 5 searches through Exa I'm not even getting DuckDuckGo-quality responses. And you're advertising yourself in the corner, patting your own back in blogposts, ushering me towards a pricing page and telling me scary stories before I go. Maybe we should stop super-washing things and sell products on their literal merit. Google isn't…
[dead]
Re: We need superknowledge before superintelligence
#10> "We’ll soon have near-AGI intelligences (GPT-5)" Does anyone technical believe GPT-5 will be even remotely close to anything which has even a vague resemblance to AGI?
I'm technical and it wouldn't be surprising if GPT-5 will be able to code up small projects like an intern, perform complex actions across the web like an executive assistant, understand images and video better than most humans.
If you described this to someone 20 years ago, I think this would qualify as near-AGI intelligence.
It's totally possible that getting to true AGI -- where you could trust it with pretty much any complex task -- will require more breakthroughs.