zlacker

> In that reading Altman is head clown.

That's a good bet. 10 months ago Microsoft's newest star employee figured he was on the way to "break capitalism."

https://futurism.com/the-byte/openai-ceo-agi-break-capitalis...

>>topspi+(OP)
AGI hype is a powerful hallucinogen, and some are smoking way too much of it.

>>dkjaud+T2
I think it’s overly simplistic to make blanket statements like this unless you’re on the bleeding edge of the work in this industry and have some sort of insight that literally no one else does.

>>93po+bk
I can be on the bleeding edge of whatever you like and be no closer to having any insight into AGI anymore than anyone else. Anyone who claims they have should be treated with suspicion (Altman is a fine example here).

There is no concrete definition of intelligence, let alone AGI. It's a nerdy fantasy term, a hallowed (and feared!) goal with a very handwavy, circular definition. Right now it's 100% hype.

>>dkjaud+Uo
You don't think AGI is feasible? GPT is already useful. Scaling reliably and predictably yields increases in capabilities. As its capabilities increase it becomes more general. Multimodal models and the use of tools further increase generality. And that's within the current transformer architecture paradigm; once we start reasonably speculating, there're a lot of avenues to further increase capabilities e.g. a better architecture over transformers, better architecture in general, better/more GPUs, better/more data etc. Even if capabilities plateau there are other options like specialised fine-tuned models for particular domains like medicine/law/education.

I find it harder to imagine a future where AGI (even if it's not superintelligent) does not have a huge and fundamental impact.

>>coder-+151
This is exactly what the previous poster was talking about, these definitions are so circular and hand-wavey.

AI means "artificial intelligence", but since everyone started bastardizing the term for the sake of hype to mean anything related to LLMs and machine learning, we now use "AGI" instead to actually mean proper artificial intelligence. And now you're trying to say that AI + applying it generally = AGI. That's not what these things are supposed to mean, people just hear them thrown around so much that they forget what the actual definitions are.

AGI means a computer that can actually think and reason and have original thoughts like humans, and no I don't think it's feasible.

>>coder-+151
It's not about feasibility or level of intelligence per say - I expect AI to be able to pass a turing test long before an AI actually "wakes up" to a level of intelligence that establishes an actual conscious self identity comparable to a human.

For all intents and purposes the glorified software of the near future will appear to be people but they will not be and they will continue to have issues that simply don't make sense unless they were just really good at acting - the article today about the AI that can fix logic errors but not "see" them is a perfect example.

This isn't the generation that would wake up anyway. We are seeing the creation of the worker class of AI, the manager class, the AI made to manage AI - they may have better chances but it's likely going to be the next generation before we need to be concerned or can actually expect a true AGI but again - even an AI capable of original and innovative thinking with an appearance of self identity doesn't guarantee that the AI is an AGI.

I'm not sure we could ever truly know for certain

>>jacobm+zc1
Intelligence is gathering and application of knowledge and skills.

Computers have been gathering and applying information since inception. A calculator is a form of intelligence. I agree "AI" is used as a buzzword with sci-fi connotations, but if we're being pedantic about words then I hold my stated opinion that literally anything that isn't biological and can compute is "artificial" and "intelligent"

> AGI means a computer that can actually think and reason and have original thoughts like humans, and no I don't think it's feasible.

Why not? Conceptually there's no physical reason why this isn't possible. Computers can simulate neurons. With enough computers we can simulate enough neurons to make a simulation of a whole brain. We either don't have that total computational power, or the organization/structure to implement that. But brains aren't magic that is incapable of being reproduced.