←back to thread

I don't think AGI is right around the corner

(www.dwarkesh.com)
333 points mooreds | 4 comments | 06 Jul 25 20:45 UTC | HN request time: 0.849s | source
Show context
izzydata ◴[06 Jul 25 21:24 UTC] No.44484180[source]▶
Not only do I not think it is right around the corner. I'm not even convinced it is even possible or at the very least I don't think it is possible using conventional computer hardware. I don't think being able to regurgitate information in an understandable form is even an adequate or useful measurement of intelligence. If we ever crack artificial intelligence it's highly possible that in its first form it is of very low intelligence by humans standards, but is truly capable of learning on its own without extra help.
replies(10): >>44484210 #>>44484226 #>>44484229 #>>44484355 #>>44484381 #>>44484384 #>>44484386 #>>44484439 #>>44484454 #>>44484478 #
navels ◴[06 Jul 25 21:29 UTC] No.44484226[source]▶
why not?
replies(1): >>44484416 #
1. izzydata ◴[06 Jul 25 21:51 UTC] No.44484416[source]▶
I'm not an expert by any means, but everything I've seen of LLMs / machine learning looks like mathematical computation no different than what computers have always been doing at a fundamental level. If computers weren't AI before than I don't think they are now just because the maths they are doing has changed.

Maybe something like the game of life is more in the right direction. Where you set up a system with just the right set of rules with input and output and then just turn it on and let it go and the AI is an emergent property of the system over time.

replies(1): >>44484479 #
2. hackinthebochs ◴[06 Jul 25 22:00 UTC] No.44484479[source]▶
Why do you have a preconception of what an implementation of AGI should look like? LLMs are composed of the same operations that computers have always done. But they're organized in novel ways that have produced novel capabilities.
replies(1): >>44484740 #
3. izzydata ◴[06 Jul 25 22:35 UTC] No.44484740[source]▶
I am expressing doubt. I don't have any preconceptions. I am open to being convinced of anything that makes more sense.
replies(1): >>44485493 #
4. tempusalaria ◴[07 Jul 25 00:30 UTC] No.44485493{3}[source]▶
Even as someone who is skeptical about LLMs, I’m not sure how anyone can look at what was achieved in AlphaGo and not at least consider the possibility that NNs could be superhuman in basically every domain at some point