| ▲ | goldenarm 6 hours ago |
| Is AGI really inevitable ? Claiming something is inevitable is a great way to disarm critical thinking. |
|
| ▲ | tspng 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I always found arguments for or against such technological advancements meaningless, if we don't specify what timeframes we are talking about. Sometimes I have the impression that people who disagree are simply thinking in different timeframes.
For me, only short- and sometimes mid-term timeframes are practical in such deabtes. Long-term is interesting, but more in the realm of science fiction. In the context of AGI, is it inevitable eventually?
Sure, I would agree, unless some catastrophic event puts back our technological advancement. IMO, don't see the path to AGI with the current tech, though. All current SOTA agents are still LLM based with all their flaws (limited reasoning, generalization, incomplete world model, hallucinations, ...). At their core, they are still next token predictors with a limited context. Most of the advances in AI in the past 2 years are in post-training and harnesses. I'd expect a different core technology than just an LLM in order to get to AGI. |
| |
| ▲ | sarchertech 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > In the context of AGI, is it inevitable eventually? Sure, I would agree, unless some catastrophic event puts back our technological advancement. What if it’s not a catastrophic event, but technological progress just asymptotically approaches 0? What if there is a limit to layers upon layers of abstraction and at some point it just becomes too complicated to keep going? What if we all somehow decide that we don’t want AGI? It seems impossible now but a lot of people really seem to hate AI. What if that sentiment grows globally the next 50-100 years? That’s all ignoring the possibility that the materialists are wrong. Around 80% of the world believes in some kind of soul or spirit. If anything materialism is a bit of a fringe belief. | | |
| ▲ | tspng an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > What if it’s not a catastrophic event, but technological progress just asymptotically approaches 0? What if there is a limit to layers upon layers of abstraction and at some point it just becomes too complicated to keep going? Looking at history, there is not really an argument for progress to stop in the long term.
I think I get what you mean, that further advancement gets more and more complicated and the human mind gets to a limit what it can comprehend and reason about. But lots of research and progress have been augmented by technology in the past 70 years or so, and I don't see a reason why it wont continue along that path.
I agree that there is a limit to everything. But it is almost impossible to forsee when and where that is going to happen. | |
| ▲ | seanclayton 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What is a globally accepted sentiment found in every nation, tribe, village, and domicile across the globe today? | | |
| ▲ | sarchertech 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | The prohibition against unjust killing is pretty much universal. What is or isn’t unjust is variable, but all societies have the concept of and prohibition against unjust killing. It’s true that if AGI is easy for a small group of people to build prohibition isn’t really possible. But if AGI takes a massive data center and billions of dollars, it could be. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | flohofwoe 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| About as 'inevitable' as fusion power, virtual reality and flying cars I'd say. The actual technological revolutions are usually less 'obvious'. |
|
| ▲ | faeyanpiraat 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Well, if progress stops it can be avoided.. |
| |
| ▲ | goldenarm 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | What is our definition of progress ? We were progressing against world hunger but we decided to shut down efforts against it last year. Is it progress to invest $1T into semi-accurate plagiarism machines trained on stolen data ? | | |
| ▲ | overgard 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sadly, a lot of peoples definition of progress is "number go up". The stock market is booming and yet most people are poorer than they were in the past because those numbers and that "progress" is only in the interest of a very small number of people completely disconnected from the society they live in. |
| |
| ▲ | dylan604 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | But that's part of the inevitable isn't it? You'll never get everyone to stop. Someone will always do it because they feel it being inevitable that if they don't do it someone else will so might as well do it. |
|
|
| ▲ | basisword 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| AGI isn't necessary to completely change things. The change that's occurred in the last 6 months alone is massive. Another couple of big steps like the end of last year and the world is unrecognisable from even a few years ago. |
| |
| ▲ | psvv 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | What makes another couple big steps like that inevitable in a short time frame? Before the recent floodgates cracked open, AI research made only slow incremental progress for decades. Why couldn't we already be back near that rate of progress? | | |
|
|
| ▲ | postalrat 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Give your arguments for it not being inevitable if you question it. |
| |
| ▲ | marginalia_nu 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Well if it's inevitable, why are we working toward it? | | |
| ▲ | fullshark 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Because we don’t want to be left behind as members of the permanent underclass. Unless you own the god machine or work on improving it you don’t matter. | | |
| |
| ▲ | arcatech 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I’m not the person you’re responding to, but I’ll answer. It’s not worth the (token) cost. It’s too inefficient. It’s brute-forcing solutions to problems by spending more and more tokens. | |
| ▲ | Planktonne 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | There is no reason to believe that it is inevitable. |
|
