undefined | Better HN

0 pointsfreehorse1y ago0 comments

Nobody has seen any AGI so far. As far as I am concerned, right now it is just a scarecrow used by sociopaths like Altman et al to promote their self-interests.

0 comments

latentsea1y ago

No one had ever seen nuclear weapons when they had only been theorized.

I'm just assuming that since networked computers are everywhere, models seem to be proliferating and natural general intelligence seems to function as a resilient, distributed system, it's not unthinkable to me that things eventually trend in that direction.

freehorseOP1y ago

Scientists had understanding of nuclear fission and how nuclear physics work. It was theoretically possible before it became practically feasible.

We have no idea what intelligence really is ("resilient, distributed system" is not universally accepted as definition, even more to really mean something outside of analytic definitions if such have any use at all, to say the least), how it works, how a theoretical system could function as "generally intelligent" in concrete terms. Intelligence as we know it is a property of living organisms. It is a phenomenon. What "artificial intelligence" may even mean and if it is possible to create "intelligence" artificially is mere speculation. We face real existential threats that are not mere speculation, as we do not even know whether the ways we affect the planet may lead to a habitable environment for humans or not.

idiotsecant1y ago

Both things can be true.

AGI is a boogeyman used by those with a competitive advantage to maintain that advantage artificially be casting competitor projects as dangerous and wreckless.

AGI is a potential existential threat to the human species on the scale of global thermonuclear war and climate change.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse