zlacker

>>tedsan+(OP)
I'm confused and a bit disturbed; honestly having a very difficult time internalizing and processing this information. This announcement is making me wonder if I'm poorly calibrated on the current progress of AI development and the potential path forward. Is the key idea here that current AI development has figured out enough to brute force a path towards AGI? Or I guess the alternative is that they expect to figure it out in the next 4 years...

I don't know how to make sense of this level of investment. I feel that I lack the proper conceptual framework to make sense of the purchasing power of half a trillion USD in this context.

>>TheAce+9g
"There are maybe a few hundred people in the world who viscerally understand what's coming. Most are at DeepMind / OpenAI / Anthropic / X but some are on the outside. You have to be able to forecast the aggregate effect of rapid algorithmic improvement, aggressive investment in building RL environments for iterative self-improvement, and many tens of billions already committed to building data centers. Either we're all wrong, or everything is about to change." - Vedant Misra, Deepmind Researcher.

Maybe your calibration isn't poor. Maybe they really are all wrong but there's a tendency here to these these people behind the scenes are all charlatans, fueling hype without equal substance hoping to make a quick buck before it all comes crashing down, but i don't think that's true at all. I think these people really genuinely believe they're going to get there. And if you genuinely think that, them this kind of investment isn't so crazy.

>>famous+Qv
>Maybe they really are all wrong

All? Quite a few of the best minds in the field, like Yann LeCun for example, have been adamant that 1) autoregressive LLMs are NOT the path to AGI and 2) that AGI is very likely NOT just a couple of years away.

>>DebtDe+uE1
I'm inclined to agree with Yann about true AGI, but he works at Meta and they seem to think current LLM's are sufficiently useful to be dumping preposterous amounts of money at them as well.

It may be a distinction thats not worth making if the current approach is good enough to completely transform society and make infinite money

>>anthon+082
Yeah, in my mind, the distinction worth making is where the inflection point from exponential growth to plateau in the s-curve of usefulness is. Have we already hit it? Are we going to hit it soon? Is it far in the future? Or is it exponential from here straight to "the singularity"?

Hard to predict!

If we've already hit it, this has already been a very short period of time during which we've seen incredibly valuable new technology commercialized, and that's nothing to sneeze at, and fortunes have and will be rightly made from it.

If it's in the near future, then a lot of people might be over-investing in the promise of future growth that won't materialize to the extent they hoped. Some people will lose their shirts, but we're still left with incredibly useful new technology.

But if we have a long (or infinite) way to go before hitting that inflection point, then the hype is justified.