|
|
|
|
|
|
by argonaut
3708 days ago
|
|
|
You can say that. Someone working on AGI != they have a good pathway to AGI. And anyone telling you they have a good pathway to AGI is being ridiculously and naively over-optimistic (recall that back in the 1960s people thought they had a pathway to AGI - repeat this every other decade). None of those projects have yet shown any real progress towards AGI. A roadmap and "comprehensive architecture" are just plans and conjectures, not results. The AGI conference is also still fairly niche. EDIT: Agreed with below. I also want to clarify that I'm not saying AGI is unworthy of research. It's just total early stages right now. Be aware that progress is incremental, and maintaining momentum (and research funding) is predicated on delivering tangible results and tools incrementally. |
|
|
One thing to note though is these efforts are often put forth by some hard working folks and the product can be something great.
For example, "Thinking Machines" [1] [2], founded in 1983 in Cambridge and defunct in 1994. The folks who spent effort there would later take their knowledge of parallel programming and built a tool called An Initio as a successor company. The tool was way ahead of its time. It'd maximize resource usage on a machine in parallel without much technical knowledge needed by the developer. They made a boat load off of deploying this tool on internal datasets at many major companies for what was then called "data warehousing".
[1] https://www.technologyreview.com/s/406781/thinking-machines/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking_Machines_Corporation