TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

AGI Is Still 30 Years Away – Ege Erdil and Tamay Besiroglu

174 点作者 Philpax大约 1 个月前

38 条评论

yibg大约 1 个月前
Might as well be 10 - 1000 years. Reality is no one knows how long it&#x27;ll take to get to AGI, because:<p>1) No one knows what exactly makes humans &quot;intelligent&quot; and therefore 2) No one knows what it would take to achieve AGI<p>Go back through history and AI &#x2F; AGI has been a couple of decades away for several decades now.
评论 #43722689 未加载
评论 #43722762 未加载
评论 #43722264 未加载
评论 #43722584 未加载
评论 #43723192 未加载
评论 #43724679 未加载
评论 #43724637 未加载
评论 #43725961 未加载
评论 #43725055 未加载
ksec大约 1 个月前
Is AGI even important? I believe the next 10 to 15 years will be Assisted Intelligence. There are things that current LLM are so poor I dont believe a 100x increase in pref &#x2F; watt is going to make much difference. But it is going to be good enough there wont be an AI Winter. Since current AI has already reached escape velocity and actually increase productivity in many areas.<p>The most intriguing part is if Humanoid factory worker programming will be made 1000 to 10,000x more cost effective with LLM. Effectively ending all human production. I know this is a sensitive topic but I dont think we are far off. And I often wonder if this is what the current administration has in sight. ( Likely Not )
评论 #43722074 未加载
评论 #43721573 未加载
评论 #43722240 未加载
评论 #43720094 未加载
评论 #43721593 未加载
评论 #43723605 未加载
评论 #43726461 未加载
评论 #43721244 未加载
评论 #43721933 未加载
stared大约 1 个月前
My pet peeve: talking about AGI without defining it. There’s no consistent, universally accepted definition. Without that, the discussion may be intellectually entertaining—but ultimately moot.<p>And we run into the motte-and-bailey fallacy: at one moment, AGI refers to something known to be mathematically impossible (e.g., due to the No Free Lunch theorem); the next, it’s something we already have with GPT-4 (which, while clearly not superintelligent, is general enough to approach novel problems beyond simple image classification).<p>There are two reasonable approaches in such cases. One is to clearly define what we mean by the term. The second (IMHO, much more fruitful) is to taboo your words (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.lesswrong.com&#x2F;posts&#x2F;WBdvyyHLdxZSAMmoz&#x2F;taboo-your-words" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.lesswrong.com&#x2F;posts&#x2F;WBdvyyHLdxZSAMmoz&#x2F;taboo-your...</a>)—that is, avoid vague terms like AGI (or even AI!) and instead use something more concrete. For example: “When will it outperform 90% of software engineers at writing code?” or “When will all AI development be in hands on AI?”.
评论 #43723139 未加载
评论 #43722582 未加载
评论 #43728389 未加载
dmwilcox大约 1 个月前
I&#x27;ve been saying this for a decade already but I guess it is worth saying here. I&#x27;m not afraid AI or a hammer is going to become intelligent (or jump up and hit me in the head either).<p>It is science fiction to think that a system like a computer can behave at all like a brain. Computers are incredibly rigid systems with only the limited variance we permit. &quot;Software&quot; is flexible in comparison to creating dedicated circuits for our computations but is nothing by comparison to our minds.<p>Ask yourself, why is it so hard to get a cryptographically secure random number? Because computers are pure unadulterated determinism -- put the same random seed value in your code and get the same &quot;random numbers&quot; every time in the same order. Computers need to be like this to be good tools.<p>Assuming that AGI is possible in the kinds of computers we know how to build means that we think a mind can be reduced to a probabilistic or deterministic system. And from my brief experience on this planet I don&#x27;t believe that premise. Your experience may differ and it might be fun to talk about.<p>In Aristotle&#x27;s ethics he talks a lot about ergon (purpose) -- hammers are different than people, computers are different than people, they have an obvious purpose (because they are tools made with an end in mind). Minds strive -- we have desires, wants and needs -- even if it is simply to survive or better yet thrive (eudaimonia).<p>An attempt to create a mind is another thing entirely and not something we know how to start. Rolling dice hasn&#x27;t gotten anywhere. So I&#x27;d wager AGI somewhere in the realm of 30 years to never.
评论 #43722938 未加载
评论 #43723162 未加载
评论 #43723797 未加载
评论 #43723051 未加载
评论 #43725664 未加载
评论 #43725619 未加载
评论 #43722893 未加载
评论 #43723536 未加载
评论 #43723176 未加载
评论 #43723121 未加载
评论 #43724852 未加载
评论 #43723230 未加载
sebastiennight大约 1 个月前
The thing is, AGI is <i>not</i> needed to enable incredible business&#x2F;societal value, and there is good reason to believe that actual AGI would <i>damage</i> both our society, our economy, and if many experts in the field are to be believed, humanity&#x27;s survival as well.<p>So I feel happy that models keep improving, and not worried at all that they&#x27;re reaching an asymptote.
评论 #43723030 未加载
codingwagie大约 1 个月前
I just used o3 to design a distributed scheduler that scales to 1M+ sxchedules a day. It was perfect, and did better than two weeks of thought around the best way to build this.
评论 #43719906 未加载
评论 #43720086 未加载
评论 #43721143 未加载
评论 #43722293 未加载
评论 #43720092 未加载
评论 #43727685 未加载
评论 #43723047 未加载
评论 #43721297 未加载
fusionadvocate大约 1 个月前
Can someone throw some light on this Dwarkesh character? He landed a Zucc podcast pretty early on... how connected is he? Is he an industry plant?
评论 #43720044 未加载
评论 #43725156 未加载
评论 #43722930 未加载
xbmcuser大约 1 个月前
Most people talking about Ai and economic growth have vested interests in talking about how it will increase economic growth but don&#x27;t talk about that under current economic system that the world has would mean most if not all of the growth will go to &gt; 0.0001% of the population.
dcchambers大约 1 个月前
And in 30 years it will be another 30 years away.<p>LLMs are so incredibly useful and powerful but they will NEVER be AGI. I actually wonder if the success of (and subsequent obsession with) LLMs is putting true AGI further out of reach. All that these AI companies see are the $$$. When the biggest &quot;AI Research Labs&quot; like OpenAI shifted to product-izing their LLM offerings I think the writing was on the wall that they don&#x27;t actually care about finding AGI.
评论 #43721975 未加载
评论 #43720073 未加载
评论 #43720042 未加载
dicroce大约 1 个月前
Doesn&#x27;t even matter. The capabilities of the AI that&#x27;s out NOW will take a decade or more to digest.
评论 #43719953 未加载
评论 #43722914 未加载
评论 #43747545 未加载
lexarflash8g大约 1 个月前
Apparently Dwarkesh&#x27;s podcast is a big hit in SV -- it was covered by the Economist just recently. I thought the &quot;All in&quot; podcast was the voice of tech but their content has been going politcal with MAGA lately and their episodes are basically shouting matches with their guests.<p>And for folks who want to read rather than listen to a podcast, why not create an article (they are using Gemini) rather than just posting the whole transcript? Who is going to read a 60 min long transcript?
评论 #43733203 未加载
xnx大约 1 个月前
I&#x27;ll take the &quot;under&quot; on 30 years. Demis Hassabis (who has more credibility than whoever these 3 people are combined) says 5-10 years: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;time.com&#x2F;7277608&#x2F;demis-hassabis-interview-time100-2025&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;time.com&#x2F;7277608&#x2F;demis-hassabis-interview-time100-20...</a>
评论 #43720736 未加载
评论 #43721087 未加载
ChicagoDave大约 1 个月前
You can’t put a date on AGI until the required technology is invented and that hasn’t happened yet.
colesantiago大约 1 个月前
This &quot;AGI&quot; definition is extremely loose depending on who you talk to. Ask &quot;what does AGI mean to you&quot; and sometimes the answer is:<p>1. Millions of layoffs across industries due to AI with some form of questionable UBI (not sure if this works)<p>2. 100BN in profits. (Microsoft &#x2F; OpenAI definition)<p>3. Abundance in slopware. (VC&#x27;s definition)<p>4. Raise more money to reach AGI &#x2F; ASI.<p>5. Any job that a human can do which is economically significant.<p>6. Safe AI (Researchers definition).<p>7. All the above that AI could possibly do better.<p>I am sure there must be a industry aligned and concrete definition that everyone can agree on rather the goal post moving definitions.
tim333大约 1 个月前
30 years away seems rather unlikely to me, if you define AGI as being able to do the stuff humans do. I mean like Dawkesh says:<p>&gt;We’ve gone from Chat GPT two years ago to now we have models that can literally do reasoning, are better coders than me, and I studied software engineering in college.<p>Also we&#x27;ve recently reached the point where relatively reasonable hardware can do as much compute as the human brain so we just need some algorithms.
Zambyte大约 1 个月前
Related: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;AI_effect" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;AI_effect</a>
csours大约 1 个月前
1. LLM interactions can feel real. Projections and psychological mirroring is very real.<p>2. I believe that AI researchers will require some level of embodiment to demonstrate:<p>a. ability to understand the physical world.<p>b. make changes to the physical world.<p>c. predict the outcome to changes in the physical world.<p>d. learn from the success or failure of those predictions and update their internal model of the external world.<p>---<p>I cannot quickly find proposed tests in this discussion.
owenthejumper大约 1 个月前
I &quot;love&quot; how the interviewer keeps conflating intelligence with &quot;Hey OpenAI will make $100b&quot;
lucisferre大约 1 个月前
Huh, so it should be ready around the same time as practical fusion reactors then. I&#x27;ll warm up the car.
anon6362大约 1 个月前
Fusion power will arrive first. And, it will be needed to power the Cambrian explosion of datacenters just for weak AI.<p>I could be wrong but AGI maybe a cold fusion or flying cars boondoggle: chasing a dream that no one needs, costs too much, or is best left unrealized.
lo_zamoyski大约 1 个月前
Thirty years. Just enough time to call it quits and head to Costa Rica.
consumer451大约 1 个月前
One thing in the podcast I found really interesting from a personal pov was:<p>&gt; I remember talking to a very senior person who’s now at Anthropic, in 2017. And then he told various people that they shouldn’t do a PhD because by the time they completed it everyone will be automated.<p>Don’t tell young people things like this. Predicting the future is hard, and it is the height of hubris to think otherwise.<p>I remember as a teen, I had thought that I was a supposed to be a pilot for all my life. I was ready to enroll in a school with a two year program.<p>However, I was also into computers. One person who I looked up to in that world said to me “don’t be a pilot, it will all be automated soon and you will just be buss drivers, at best.” This entirely took the wind out of my piloting sails.<p>This was in the early 90’s, and 30 years later, it is still wrong.
andrewstuart大约 1 个月前
LLMs are basically a library that can talk.<p>That’s not artificial intelligence.
评论 #43720037 未加载
评论 #43719994 未加载
评论 #43722517 未加载
antisthenes大约 1 个月前
You cannot have AGI without a physical manifestation that can generate its own training data based on inputs from the external outside world with e.g. sensors and constantly refine its model.<p>Pure language or pure image-models are just one aspect of intelligence - just very refined pattern recognition.<p>You will also probably need some aspect of self-awareness in order or the system to set auxiliary goals and directives related to self-maintenance.<p>But you don&#x27;t need AGI in order to have something useful (which I think a lot of readers are confused about). No one is making the argument that you need AGI to bring tons of value.
_Algernon_大约 1 个月前
The new fusion power
评论 #43720080 未加载
swframe2大约 1 个月前
The Anthropic&#x27;s research on how LLMs reason shows that LLMs are quite flawed.<p>I wonder if we can use an LLM to deeply analyze and fix the flaws.
sheepscreek大约 1 个月前
Explosive growth? Interesting. But at some point, human civilization hits a saturation point. There’s only so much people can eat, wear, drive, stream, or hoard. Extending that logic, there’s a natural ceiling to demand - one that even AGI can’t code its way out of.<p>Sure, you might double the world economy for a decade, but then what? We’ll run out of people to sell things to. And that’s when things get weird.<p>To sustain growth, we’d have to start manufacturing demand itself - perhaps by turning autonomous robots into wage-earning members of society. They’d buy goods, subscribe to services, maybe even pay taxes. In effect, they become synthetic consumers fueling a post-human economy.<p>I call this post-human consumerism. It’s when the synthesis of demand would hit the next gear - if we keep moving in this direction.
EliRivers大约 1 个月前
Would we even recognise it if it arrived? We&#x27;d recognise human level intelligence, probably, but that&#x27;s specialised. What would general intelligence even look like.
评论 #43720153 未加载
评论 #43720300 未加载
评论 #43719970 未加载
评论 #43720195 未加载
评论 #43719984 未加载
评论 #43720130 未加载
评论 #43725034 未加载
评论 #43720087 未加载
alecco大约 1 个月前
Is it me or the signal&#x2F;noise is needle in a haystack for all these cheerleader tech podcasts? In general, I really miss the podcast scene from 10 years ago, less polished but more human and with reasonable content. Not this speculative blabber that seems to be looking to generate clickbait clips. I don&#x27;t know what happened a few years ago, but even solid podcasts are practically garbage now.<p>I used to listen to podcasts daily for at least an hour. Now I&#x27;m stuck with uploading blogs and pdfs to Eleven Reader. I tried the Google thing to make a podcast but it&#x27;s very repetitive and dumb.
kgwxd大约 1 个月前
Again?
pelagicAustral大约 1 个月前
Two more weeks
arkj大约 1 个月前
”‘AGI is x years away’ is a proposition that is both true and false at the same time. Like all such propositions, it is therefore meaningless.”
cruzcampo大约 1 个月前
AGI is never gonna happen - it&#x27;s the tech equivalent of the second coming of Christ, a capitalist version of the religious savior trope.
评论 #43722557 未加载
评论 #43719978 未加载
throw7大约 1 个月前
AGI is here today... go have a kid.
评论 #43720125 未加载
评论 #43720053 未加载
评论 #43720192 未加载
评论 #43721166 未加载
shortrounddev2大约 1 个月前
Hopefully more!
ValveFan6969大约 1 个月前
I do not like those who try to play God. The future of humanity will not be determined by some tech giant in their ivory tower, no matter how high it may be. This is a battle that goes deeper than ones and zeros. It&#x27;s a battle for the soul of our society. It&#x27;s a battle we must win, or face the consequences of a future we cannot even imagine... and that, I fear, is truly terrifying.
评论 #43722457 未加载
moralestapia大约 1 个月前
&quot;Literally who&quot; and &quot;literally who&quot; put out statements while others out there ship out products.<p>Many such cases.
ceoofballin大约 1 个月前
TURKS MENTIONED RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!1!1!! TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE TURKIYE