←back to thread

The deep learning boom caught almost everyone by surprise

(www.understandingai.org)
306 points slyall | 9 comments | 06 Nov 24 04:05 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
madaxe_again ◴[06 Nov 24 08:22 UTC] No.42058063[source]▶
I can’t be the only one who has watched this all unfold with a sense of inevitability, surely.

When the first serious CUDA based ML demos started appearing a decade or so ago, it was, at least to me, pretty clear that this would lead to AGI in 10-15 years - and here we are. It was the same sort of feeling as when I first saw the WWW aged 11, and knew that this was going to eat the world - and here we are.

The thing that flummoxes me is that now that we are so obviously on this self-reinforcing cycle, how many are still insistent that AI will amount to nothing.

I am reminded of how the internet was just a fad - although this is going to have an even greater impact on how we live, and our economies.

replies(3): >>42058082 #>>42058103 #>>42058171 #
1. oersted ◴[06 Nov 24 08:45 UTC] No.42058171[source]▶
What do you think is next?
replies(1): >>42059585 #
2. madaxe_again ◴[06 Nov 24 10:35 UTC] No.42059585[source]▶
An unravelling, as myriad possibilities become actualities. The advances in innumerate fields that ML will unlock will have enormous impacts.

Again, I cannot understand for the life of me how people cannot see this.

replies(2): >>42060871 #>>42062681 #
3. alexander2002 ◴[06 Nov 24 12:08 UTC] No.42060871[source]▶
I had a hypothesis once and It is probably 1000% wrong. But I will state here. /// Once computers can talk to other computers over network in human friendly way <abstraction by llm> and such that these entities completely control our interfaces which we humans can easily do and use them effectively multi-modality then I think there is a slight chance "I" might belive there is AGI or atleast some indications of it
replies(1): >>42070300 #
4. selimthegrim ◴[06 Nov 24 14:21 UTC] No.42062681[source]▶
Innumerable?
5. marcosdumay ◴[06 Nov 24 22:13 UTC] No.42070300{3}[source]▶
It's unsettling how the Turing Test turned out to be so independent of AGI, isn't it?
replies(1): >>42073064 #
6. Terr_ ◴[07 Nov 24 03:28 UTC] No.42073064{4}[source]▶
Not really, unless someone reading pop-science misunderstood the "Turing Test" as somehow being clear proof of intelligence--whatever that word really means.
replies(2): >>42074656 #>>42081777 #
7. madaxe_again ◴[07 Nov 24 08:13 UTC] No.42074656{5}[source]▶
Indeed. Until we know exactly how a human brain works, we should be cautious about describing humans as intelligent. It could just be a simulation of intelligence, for all we know.
replies(1): >>42074976 #
8. Terr_ ◴[07 Nov 24 09:04 UTC] No.42074976{6}[source]▶
"If some human can be subjectively convinced that something is $X, then it must be $X!"

*Bzzt* Circular logic solipsism cleanup on aisle 3.

9. marcosdumay ◴[07 Nov 24 22:24 UTC] No.42081777{5}[source]▶
I don't think anybody expected it to be a "clear proof". But it was very reasonable, and I never saw anybody disagree that they should be close together.

How could a computer look intelligent for random people if it was not at least something close to intelligent? Of course, now we know how. But it was really not obvious that those things would be completely different.

(And yeah, it was obvious that they are not completely the same either. Lots of people convince people that they are more intelligent than they are. For people, that still requires some amount of intelligence.)