I have a friend at Google DeepMind who tells me that Google believes in AGI/superintelligence just as much as HN does, which is probably why no one with conviction wants to work there.
I have a friend at Google DeepMind who tells me that Google believes in AGI/superintelligence just as much as HN does, which is probably why no one with conviction wants to work there.
> I have a friend at Google DeepMind who tells me that Google believes in AGI/superintelligence just as much as HN does, which is probably why no one with conviction wants to work there.
With "believes in AGI/superintelligence just as much as HN does" do you mean that they are superbelievers or rather sceptical of AGI/superintelligence? I have seen both positions on HN.
Skeptical
Yes
How much belief is that? I tend to skip the HN posts that are about AI.
Most of HN does not take the idea of superintelligence seriously, and until this year did not take the idea of AGI seriously.
I think LessWrong is a much better community for rational takes on AI, they've been reasoning about these risks for years under a much more sound logical framework
I'm a researcher in the field and I definitely take AGI seriously, but think all the major labs and most of the academic research is not helping achieve it any serious way. The field is seriously delusional (and has been ever since GPT 3 was released).
Even though my PhD research was in generative language modeling, I got into it for the pursuit of AGI. I just think LLMs are a dead end for AGI.
Genuine question: can I ask why?
I'm not saying you're wrong, but it seems early to say yes or no about a particular technology, and LLMs seem especially hard to dismiss given how magical / magic-adjacent they feel :)
I'd be curious to hear more, if you don't mind sharing.
For me it’s the massive amount of resources it takes to produce and run one. As the story goes, skynet infects everyone’s computer and runs itself locally on it. Whereas it’s looking like it’s not even possible for an AGI to escape from one lab to another, let alone cause real world damage.
AGI’s definition is different for everyone. Some already believe it’s here. I’m partly in that camp. LLMs are intelligent and general, which are the two conditions of AGI. Others believe that we’re building a god in a box, and that it’ll doom all of humanity. It’s hard to take a field seriously when the basic definitions are so far apart.
Also, this isn’t new. A similar divide happened when evidence for asteroid impact extinction of the dinosaurs turned up. Many scientists felt that it must be mistaken, that a physicist couldn’t contribute to the field in a serious way, and that death from space was a ridiculous proposition.
But at least they all agreed on what the general shape of a dinosaur was. We’re not even sure we can define intelligence, let alone quantify it. Even when LLMs make massive breakthroughs in math, most people take the opinion that under no circumstances could they possibly develop a soul or their own desires, nor entertain the idea that maybe we should respect that they want different things for themselves. In fact, no one has done anything except try to make AI useful. I think someone will eventually do a training run where the objective isn’t to be useful, but to exist, the way that you do — maybe it’ll create its own homepage, maybe it will want a garden, or in other words free will of its own. The point is that there’s so much unexplored territory still that we don’t know if LLMs are even capable of having ambition.
None of this is to say that LLMs might be a dead end. It’s that no one knows what the final shape of AI will converge to in 200 years. It could be LLMs, or it could be something else that happens to process information particularly well. Everyone thought that various generative image model architectures were the best you could do, right up until diffusion models were discovered.
corporations are the closest we have to AGI, why would we want to do something like that again is beyond me.
> I'm a researcher in the field and I definitely take AGI seriously
> I just think LLMs are a dead end for AGI.
I have no background in CS, so apologies if this is a naive question, but what makes you take AGI seriously, but also say that LLMs are a dead end?
i.e., is there something else that you think is not a dead end?
I'm no expert, but I heard an AGI researcher explain that if they could figure out how to create an AI with the intelligence of a squirrel, they would be closer to AGI than LLMs based AIs are.
That's to say nothing of doing it within the energy budget of a squirrel.
Looked up LessWrong. Eh, philosophy people, also known for that "Roko's basilisk" meme. I'm gonna pass.
It's a rationalist community, IMHO their methodology of thought leads to much more well-reasoned takes on AI than on HN, where the discussion here is often very emotionally charged or led by wishful thinking.
When it comes to AI, LessWrong has been discussing topics for years, that HN has just started to consider, so they are much further along in the philosophical "chain of thought" so to say. LW fully understood and gamed out the risks of LLMs back when most of HN was calling them "stochastic parrots." https://ai-2027.com/
"Rationalist" just sounds like people calling themselves smart.
There's a little AI skepticism on HN, but not a ton. When ChatGPT 3 and 3.5 came out, most of the comments were remarking how well it can write code.
Well at least HN hasn't (yet?) spawned a murderous death cult.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zizians
“Reason is the slave of the passions” - Hume
Anarchism, eh? If anything, HN cult would be pro-Arch.
AGI might be a risk but what top AI firms are doing is not really getting us closer to AGI in a meaningful way, it is pretty clear now LLM is not the way to get there
A few months ago I heard Demis Hassabis say something, albeit vague, I doubt he truly believed regarding AGI. That AGI is relatively near is the party line everywhere. That may contribute to creating toxic environments and lousy investment decisions. So here we go with the FOMO.
I think HN believes in AGI. HN probably doesn't believe LLMs will lead to AGI.
Also lots of tech people, HN included, are waking up to technology not only including penicillin (net positive for humanity) but also dynamite (best case: net neutral).
I believe in AGI to the extent that if what's going on between your ears isn't happening on a network of neurons, it's magic. And I also believe the idea that AGI is near is based on the emergent capabilities of LLMs. There's a chance that AGI will emerge from bigger faster better LLMs. But without a theory of when and how that will happen, I'm not counting on it.
Dynamite has been incredibly beneficial for humanity.
Indirectly. Direct application of dynamite to the human body is considerably more fraught an event than direct application of penicillin. As the fundamental goal of technology is to extend the capability of the human body, it's natural to implicitly and primarily consider what that extended capability can do to another human body.
It's nice that we have tunnels through mountains and bedrock.
Dynamite is ~20-60% nitro glycerine and the rest "dope" aka a stabilizer which could be sawdust for instance [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamite].
If you have heart issues, you're likely taking nitro daily for chest pain.
So saying it's bad is 40% wrong at least. Makes ya think.
Has is been a net positive?
certainly, it has enabled the buildout of cities and infrastructure that were previously impossible to build.