Before 2030 is my guess. We’re at full sprint even ignoring the LLM hype

But you think it is YOUR sub? Go away and run your own

And then that sub gets popular by its high quality, draws a lot of people who starts to post garbage and when criticized reply with "why don’t YOU make your own sub then?" and the cycle continous.

Yes, never hurt the tech daddies or they won't give us the cummies and free monies and girlfriends.

​

I can't believe this luddite, trying to slow down the next stage of human evolution, I want my loli robot segs and I want it yesterday! .😤😤😤

​

You will all starve homeless in a gutter before anyone agrees to give you UBI, stop clowning yourselves.

They should just have a disclaimer that it is a next-word-predictor, and not an oracle that holds the views of Microsoft or whatever.

It'll be "yanked off" alright.

Just keep it scrolling party poopers!

The most interesting thing about LLM is how good they are based on quite a simple idea. Given enough data and some rules, you get something that is remarkably 'smart'. The implication is that what you need is data+rules+compute, but not an absurd amount of compute. The argument against AGI was that we would need a full simulation of the human brain (which is absurdly complex) to hit the goal. LLM have undermined that view.

I'm not seeing 'it's done' but I do think the SOTA has shown that really amazing results can be achieved by building large data sets, applying some fairly straightforward rules and sufficient computing power to train the rules on the data.

Clearly visual data isn't a problem. Haptic data is still lacking. Aural isn't a problem. Nasal (chemical sensory) is still lacking. Magnetic, gravimetric sensors are far in advance of human ability already, though the data sets might not be coherent enough for training.

What's missing is sequential reasoning and internal fact-checking, the sort of feedback loops that we take for granted (we don't try to make breakfast if we know we don't have a bowl to make it in, we don't try to buy a car if we know we haven't learnt to drive yet). But these are not mysteries, they are defined problems.

AGI will happen before 2030. It won't be 'human' but it will be something we recognise as our equivalent in terms of competence. Fuck knows how we'll do with that.

If it was just women’s rights, racism, or LGBTQ, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

It’s economics, agism, blatant misinformation, eat the rich, and whatever random topic the hive mind takes a position on on any given day.

First asshole: 'You're wrong, you're just acting superior to people with different interests!' No.

Second asshole: 'You are plainly mistaken, casuals are by definition lesser human beings.' Very no.

Fuck the both of you.

Deep Learning is not enough. There might be still a lot of work to do. Let's hope we'll get something that's close much earlier.

It's already happening, we're too dumb to see it and instead we move the goalpost with every new announcement.

With examples like Genghis Khan, I worry that in some circumstances violence is optimal (perhaps if done in secret or in a clever way) as a means of gaining or protecting power, for example. It would be concerning if violence is not actually directly inversely correlated with IQ, but rather a different quality or set of qualities.

I think you may be overstating human creativity. There are plenty of visionaries among us who create new concepts, but the vast many of us are -boring-. We share the same memes and when we try to make our own memes they fall flat. How many people do you know have tried to write a book, and it ends up being rife with established tropes? How many hit songs use the same four chord progression? When was the last time you experienced something -truly- unique? It's been a long time for me, that's for sure.

So I don't think "making something totally unique" is the best metric for AGI. Being able to infer things? That's where I'm at. But I'm not an expert, so don't take what I'm claiming as gospel

I'd be very surprised if we didn't have an AGI by 2040.

It’s the cool new toy, give it a few months, people will get over it. Or at least, it’ll fade into the background.

There is an important sense in which it 'hacked the system': this is just what happens when you apply optimization pressure with adversarial dynamics, the Sydney model automatically yields 'hacks' of the classifier, and the more you optimize/sample, the more you exploit the classifier: https://openai.com/blog/measuring-goodharts-law/ My point is that this is more like a virus evolving to beat an immune system than about a more explicit or intentional-sounding 'deliberately hijacking the input suggestions'. The viruses aren't 'trying' to do anything, it's just that the unfit viruses get killed and vanish, and only the one that beat the immune system survive.

Fair point, but it could also stifle innovation.

No you aren't way off. They run off models, which are a huge set of pre-trained data that tell the AI what any given thing is. Using that model and the rules written into the AI and neural net it gives a result from an input. The input can be images, sounds, whatever, and the model has to be trained to specifically handle that type of input or in some cases multiple types.

After that you usually run the AI a bunch and at the start you get pretty much garbage coming out so you change the weights around to see what works best and do some training with the AI where it gives you a result and you say yes that's right or no that's incorrect, and it takes that information into account to determine its future outputs. That is not the same as a person telling something like ChatGPT it is wrong or right, at that point the model is done and complete. You aren't rewriting anything. The developers might take those conversations into account and use the corrections to enhance the model, but that's separate and not at all like chatting with an AI.

I have mostly worked with image related neural networks for tracking and detection and tracking works a lot different than detection, but I also had a hobby project with one for text that was determined the mood of a set of sentences (sad, happy, lonely, confused, scared, ect.) But that text one is easy to do for any programmer and not too bad for a non-programming savvy person either.

Moderate according to principals rather than to appease the majority. Cultivate a culture that ignores and/or bullies idiots. This is what is typically done.

The lowest common denominator of internet commentators has a low intelligence by definition, "idiot" is a word for people of low intelligence.

A roof over my head and food on my table. Stability and peace till the day I die.

So… no change? That’s been the average estimation for a while now.

What the fuck do you expect people to do?

edit: And why do you naysayers keep inserting "idiot" into a description of popular casual interest? I'm not fucking shy. If I meant to call these people stupid, you would know.

I dont think that's true. I think even the dumbest humans have dreams that generate new ideas, however abysmal they may be.

But even if you're correct, unless the AI can extrapolate the data we give it into brand new hallucinations that dream up things we've never thought of, then it will never be different or smarter than us. This is because it will always be beholden to the data that we manually feed it.

Is it really the idiots fault? Or the "geniuses" who keep failing at gatekeeping?