zlacker

>>fnbr+(OP)
Extra respect is due to Jan Leike, then:

https://x.com/janleike/status/1791498174659715494

>>thorum+Bu
Reading that thread it’s really interesting to me. I see how far we’ve come in a short couple of years. But I still can’t grasp how we’ll achieve AGI within any reasonable amount of time. It just seems like we’re missing some really critical… something…

Idk. Folks much smarter than I seem worried so maybe I should be too but it just seems like such a long shot.

>>adamta+dH
When it comes to AI, as a rule, you should assume that whatever has been made public by a company like OpenAI is AT LEAST 6 months behind what they’ve accomplished internally. At least.

So yes, the insiders very likely know a thing or two that the rest of us don’t.

>>jay-ba+FH
Sure, they know what they are about to release next, and what they plan to work on after that, but they are not clairvoyants and don't know how their plans are going to pan out.

What we're going to see over next year seems mostly pretty obvious - a lot of productization (tool use, history, etc), and a lot of efforts with multimodality, synthetic data, and post-training to add knowledge, reduce brittleness, and increase benchmark scores. None of which will do much to advance core intelligence.

The major short-term unknown seems to be how these companies will be attempting to improve planning/reasoning, and how successful that will be. OpenAI's Schulman just talked about post-training RL over longer (multi-reasoning steps) time horizons, and another approach is external tree-of-thoughts type scaffolding. These both seem more about maximizing what you can get out of the base model rather than fundamentally extending it's capabilities.