Are they lazy dismissals? Or a simple observation that LLM scaling is hitting diminishing returns way way short of AGI.

If the claim is (1) AGI coming and (2) we should so something about AGI, wouldn't it be smart to confirm (1) before worrying about (2)? Especially if certain companies have trillions of dollars of valuation that depend on society as a whole believing (1)?

▲

roywiggins an hour ago | parent | next [-]

What if "way short of AGI" is still dangerous in ways we can't easily handle?

▲

bpascal 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

i think part of the problem, though, is that we've already hit many of the warning signs that AGI is coming, and people have kept moving the goalposts. if you were to tell someone from ten years that there's an ai that has passed the turing test and has made novel mathematical discoveries, i think many would say AGI is already here.

	▲	marcus_holmes a few seconds ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You're right, in that we would have said that. I wouldn't frame it as moving the goalposts in a bad way, though. We understand more now than we did then, so we have a better idea of what the actual goal is, and moving the goalposts to frame that goal is more rational than insisting the goalposts stay where they were ten years ago even though the entire pitch has changed since then. I'm straining the analogy, obviously.
	▲	versteegen 22 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The old observation that people tend to define AI as whatever computers can't do yet is as true as ever. It's getting a bit absurd, moving from demanding "general intelligence" to replicating human cognitive phenomenology (the experience of cognitive activities). Yet LLMs can already somewhat (confabulation-prone) introspect their own "internal unspoken thoughts" in their residual streams, quite fascinating.