This comes across more as a warning than a sales pitch but I get the reflexive hostility on your part - the headline mentions “AI” after all.
This comes across more as a warning than a sales pitch but I get the reflexive hostility on your part - the headline mentions “AI” after all.
verdi@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 5 days ago
There is factually 0 chance we’ll reach AGI with the current brand of technology. There’s neither context size or compute to even come close to AGI. You’d have to either be selling snake oil or completely oblivious about the subject to even consider AGI as a real possibility. This tells me the average user really doesn’t know shit…
Perspectivist@feddit.uk 5 days ago
It’s perfectly valid to discuss the dangers of AGI whether LLMs are the path there or not. I’ve been concerned about AGI and ASI for far longer than I’ve even known about LLMs, and people were worried about exactly the same stuff back then as they are now. This is precisely the kind of threat you should try to find a solution for before we actually reach AGI - because once we do, it’s way, way too late.
Also:
You couldn’t possibly know that with absolute certainty.
verdi@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 5 days ago
>You couldn’t possibly know that with absolute certainty.
I recommend you read Cameron’s very good layman’s explanation.
Adding to that framework, there is not enough data, compute and context size to reach AGI, for the current level of technology to reach anywhere near an AGI.
Perspectivist@feddit.uk 5 days ago
Nobody knows what it actually takes to reach AGI, so nobody knows whether a certain system has enough compute and context size to get there.
For all we know, it could turn out way simpler than anyone thought - or the exact opposite.
My point still stands: you (or Cameron) couldn’t possibly know with absolute certainty.
I’d have zero issue with the claim if you’d included even a shred of humility and acknowledged you might be wrong. Since you didn’t, I’m calling bullshit on it.