undefined | Better HN

0 pointsAffric1y ago0 comments

I mean, the numbers for the money in the paper in terms of investment mean that spending is on track for what he’s talking about. 4 to 7 more years is a lot but it’s not entirely outside the realm of possibility.

My understanding of the models and linear algebra combined with my experience of their performance improvements make me think he’s likely right. We have some people wanting to pooh-pooh these machines. They will point to current limitations of the models and weak spots as though the underlying mode of the design rather than the current implementation is the limiting factor. They act as though real intelligence is always right.

I have been wrong before but I am pretty convinced. Everyone’s arguments against it happening is that it hasn’t yet happened.

No one knows what’s on the other side of AI being a better AI researcher than humans.

0 comments

_cjse1y ago

Agreed with you that (a) AGI is a real, transformative, and possibly calamitous event, and (b) with the amount of money getting pumped into it we will almost certainly get there.

However, I have a personal hobby horse here, which is reminding people that if we shut the flow of investor money off using the right economic policies [1], we can almost certainly just ... stop the research outright, before it becomes an issue.

[1]: [url-redacted]

AffricOP1y ago

True but my view on that is that governments don't want anyone else to be the first with AI AGI... and therefore they will strive to be the first. Kinda like how a big motivation for the atomic bomb was the threat of Germany developing the bomb.

And the amount of capital means that these companies could pay a lot more for labour than they are paying now for the sorts of labour we would need to deprive them of. It's an interesting idea though.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse