←back to thread

AGI Is Still 30 Years Away – Ege Erdil and Tamay Besiroglu

(www.dwarkesh.com)
174 points Philpax | 1 comments | 17 Apr 25 16:42 UTC | HN request time: 0.206s | source
Show context
dcchambers ◴[17 Apr 25 17:43 UTC] No.43720006[source]▶
And in 30 years it will be another 30 years away.

LLMs are so incredibly useful and powerful but they will NEVER be AGI. I actually wonder if the success of (and subsequent obsession with) LLMs is putting true AGI further out of reach. All that these AI companies see are the $$$. When the biggest "AI Research Labs" like OpenAI shifted to product-izing their LLM offerings I think the writing was on the wall that they don't actually care about finding AGI.

replies(3): >>43720042 #>>43720073 #>>43721975 #
thomasahle ◴[17 Apr 25 17:45 UTC] No.43720042[source]▶
People will keep improving LLMs, and by the time they are AGI (less than 30 years), you will say, "Well, these are no longer LLMs."
replies(6): >>43720091 #>>43720108 #>>43720115 #>>43720202 #>>43720341 #>>43721154 #
__MatrixMan__ ◴[17 Apr 25 17:50 UTC] No.43720115[source]▶
What the hell is general intelligence anyway? People seem to think it means human-like intelligence, but I can't imagine we have any good reason to believe that our kinds of intelligence constitute all possible kinds of intelligence--which, from the words, must be what "general" intelligence means.

It seems like even if it's possible to achieve GI, artificial or otherwise, you'd never be able to know for sure that thats what you've done. It's not exactly "useful benchmark" material.

replies(3): >>43720234 #>>43720327 #>>43721422 #
1. logicchains ◴[17 Apr 25 18:00 UTC] No.43720234[source]▶
>you'd never be able to know for sure that thats what you've done.

Words mean what they're defined to mean. Talking about "general intelligence" without a clear definition is just woo, muddy thinking that achieves nothing. A fundamental tenet of the scientific method is that only testable claims are meaningful claims.