←back to thread

The deep learning boom caught almost everyone by surprise

(www.understandingai.org)
251 points slyall | 6 comments | 06 Nov 24 04:05 UTC | HN request time: 1.054s | 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.