I'd bet the other way because I think Moore's law like advances in compute will make things much easier for researchers.

Like I was watching Hinton explain LLMs to Jon Stewart and they were saying they came up with the algorithm in 1986 but then it didn't really work for the decades until now because the hardware wasn't up to it (https://youtu.be/jrK3PsD3APk?t=1899)

If things were 1000x faster you could semi randomly try all sorts of arrangements of neural nets to see which think better.

▲

jb1991 a day ago | parent [-]

You’re making the common assumption that “the algorithm“ is everything we need to get to AGI and it’s just a question of scaling.

▲

tim333 a day ago | parent [-]

I guess so. Is there reason to think an appropriate algorithm and scale can't do that?

▲

jb1991 16 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, perhaps an "appropriate algorithm" could, but it is my opinion that we have not found that algorithm. LLMs are cool but I think they are very primitive compared to human intelligence and we aren't even close to getting AGI via that route.

	▲	tim333 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I agree with you that we are not there yet, algorithm wise.