←back to thread

I don't think AGI is right around the corner

(www.dwarkesh.com)
334 points mooreds | 3 comments | 06 Jul 25 20:45 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
dathinab ◴[06 Jul 25 21:54 UTC] No.44484445[source]▶
I _hope_ AGI is not right around the corner, for social political reasons we are absolutely not ready for it and it might push the future of humanity into a dystopia abyss.

but also just taking what we have now with some major power usage reduction and minor improvements here and there already seems like something which can be very usable/useful in a lot of areas (and to some degree we aren't even really ready for that either, but I guess thats normal with major technological change)

it's just that for those companies creating foundational models it's quite unclear how they can recoup their already spend cost without either major break through or forcefully (or deceptively) pushing it into a lot more places then it fits into

replies(6): >>44484506 #>>44484517 #>>44485067 #>>44485492 #>>44485764 #>>44486142 #
pbreit ◴[06 Jul 25 22:06 UTC] No.44484517[source]▶
Must "AGI" match human intelligence exactly or would outperforming in some functions and underpformin in others qualify?
replies(6): >>44484575 #>>44484600 #>>44484769 #>>44484956 #>>44488494 #>>44489281 #
1. saubeidl ◴[06 Jul 25 22:14 UTC] No.44484575[source]▶
Where would you draw the line? Any ol' computer outperforms me in doing basic arithmetic.
replies(2): >>44484645 #>>44484735 #
2. hkt ◴[06 Jul 25 22:22 UTC] No.44484645[source]▶
I'd suggest anything able to match a professional doing knowledge work. Original research from recognisably equivalent cognition, or equal abilities with a skilled practitioner of (eg) medicine.

This sets the bar high, though. I think there's something to the idea of being able to pass for human in the workplace though. That's the real, consequential outcome here: AGI genuinely replacing humans, without need for supervision. That's what will have consequences. At the moment we aren't there (pre-first-line-support doesn't count).

3. kulahan ◴[06 Jul 25 22:35 UTC] No.44484735[source]▶
This is a question of how we quantify intelligence, and there aren’t many great answers. Still, basic arithmetic is probably not the right guideline for intelligence. My guess has always been that it’ll lie somewhere in ability to think critically, which they still have not even attempted yet, because it doesn’t really work with LLMs as they’re structured today.