[umvi]

Really? I thought by 1940 physicists generally understood fission and theoretically understood how to build a bomb - they just needed to find enough distilled fissile material (which was hard to do). And indeed, once they had enough U235, they had such a high degree of confidence in the theory, that they built a functioning U235 bomb without ever having previously tested one.

[DuskStar]

In 1939, Enrico Fermi expressed 90% confidence [0] that creating a self-sustaining nuclear reaction with Uranium was impossible. And, if you're working with U238, it basically is! But it turns out that it's possible to separate out U235 in sufficient quantities to use that instead.

On the 2nd of December, 1942 he led an experiment at Chicago Pile 1 [1] that initiated the first self-sustaining nuclear reaction. And it was made with Uranium.

In fairness to Fermi, nuclear fission was discovered in 1938 [2] and published in early 1939.

0: https://books.google.com/books?id=aSgFMMNQ6G4C&pg=PA813&lpg=...

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile-1

2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission#Discovery_of_n...

[laughinghan]

> 90% confidence [0] that creating a self-sustaining nuclear reaction with Uranium was impossible

But the fact that Fermi was doing such a calculation in the first place proves that we knew in principle how a fission weapon could work, even if we didn't know "how far off [they] were". As soon as we figured out the moon was just a rock 240,000 miles away, we knew in principle we could go there, even if we didn't know how far off that would be.

By contrast, we don't know what consciousness or intelligence even is. A child could define what walking on the moon is, and Fermi was able to define a self-sustaining nuclear reaction as soon as he learned what nuclear reactions were. What even is the definition of consciousness?

[acqq]

> as soon as we figured out the moon was just a rock 240,000 miles away, we knew in principle we could go there, even if we didn't know how far off that would be

I have problems agreeing with that specific claim, knowing that both "the rock" and the distance were known to some ancient Greeks around 2200 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipparchus

Hipparchus estimated the distance to the Moon in the Earth radii to between 62 and 80 (depending on the method he used, as he intentionally used two different). Today's measurements are between 55 and 64.

[laughinghan]

Holy shit, that is so impressive. They didn't even have Newton's law of gravity yet.

Once we had Newton's law of gravity though, we knew the distance, radius, mass, and even surface gravity of the moon. Would you say it's fair to say that by then we knew in principle we could go there and walk there?

(P.S. I assume you know this but the way you wrote your comment makes it seem like our measurements of lunar distance are nearly as inaccurate as Hipparchus's, when we actually know it down to the millimeter (thanks to retroreflectors placed by Apollo, actually). The wide variation from 55x to 64x Earth's radius is because it changes over the course of the moon's orbit, due to [edit: primarily its elliptical orbit, and only secondarily] the Sun and Jupiter's gravity.)

[acqq]

> The wide variation from 55x to 64x Earth's radius is because it changes over the course of the moon's orbit, due to the Sun and Jupiter's gravity

I think you’re not only wrong but even Kepler and Newton already knew that better than you:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic_orbit

“Strictly speaking, both bodies revolve around the same focus of the ellipse, the one closer to the more massive body, but when one body is significantly more massive, such as the sun in relation to the earth, the focus may be contained within the larger massing body, and thus the smaller is said to revolve around it.”

But maybe you have some better information?

[laughinghan]

No you're right, the Sun and Jupiter are a secondary effect to the elliptical orbit, I skimmed the Wikipedia page too quickly:

> due to its elliptical orbit with varying eccentricity, the instantaneous distance varies with monthly periodicity. Furthermore, the distance is perturbed by the gravitational effects of various astronomical bodies – most significantly the Sun and less so Jupiter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_distance_(astronomy)#Per...

[DuskStar]

None of this really counters the core point - that we don't know how long it will be before we have AGI. Is there some way to define consciousness that will be discovered in the future that makes the problem possible?

[laughinghan]

Your core point (and that of the MIRI article you linked to) is not just "we don't know". It's that the chance of being imminent and catastrophic is worth taking seriously.

I am of course not saying you're wrong that "we don't know". We obviously don't know. It's possible, just like it's possible that we could discover cheap free energy (fusion?) tomorrow and then be in a post-scarcity utopia. But that's worth taking about as seriously as the possibility that we'll discover AGI tomorrow and be in a Terminator dystopia, or also a post-scarcity utopia.

More importantly, it's a distraction from the very real, well-past-imminent problems that existing dumb AI has, such as the surveillance economy and misinformation. OpenAI, to their credit, does a good job of taking these existing problems quite seriously. They draw a strong contrast to MIRI's AI alarmism.

Have you ever read idlewords? Best writing I know of on this subject: https://idlewords.com/talks/superintelligence.htm

[ekianjo]

> In 1939, Enrico Fermi expressed 90% confidence [0] that creating a self-sustaining nuclear reaction with Uranium was impossible. And, if you're working with U238, it basically is! But it turns out that it's possible to separate out U235 in sufficient quantities to use that instead.

You are moving goalposts. You mentioned in the first place "fission weapons" and now you take a quote about "nuclear fission reactor" which is a whole different thing.

[DuskStar]

A self-sustaining nuclear reaction is a prerequisite for a fission weapon. (that's what allows the exponential doubling of fission events to occur)

A nuclear reactor was also required for the production of Pu-239, which is what 2 of the first 3 bombs were made from.

[idlewords]

They did understand it theoretically. This is the key flaw in any analogy between AI risk and nuclear weapons.

[ummm32]

Quite fair, but not 100% certain.

Almost nobody really knows how developed is the state-of-the-art theory / applied technology in confidentials advances that the usual suspects may have already achieved. I.E. deepmind, openai, baidu, nsa, etc.

AGI could have already been achieved - even theoretically - somewhere, and like when Edison got to make work a light bulb, we're still using oil and not knowing anything about electricity, or light bulbs or energy distribution networks / infrastructure.

The actual current - new, mostly unimplemented yet - technology level.

Back then you wouldn't have believed if someone had said you "hey, city nights in ten years won't be dark anymore"

[idlewords]

This is an AI equivalent of believing that the NSA has proved that P=NP and can read everyone's traffic.

There's no way to disprove it, but given that in the open literature people haven't even found a way to coherently frame the question of general AI, let alone theorize about it, it becomes just another form of magical thinking.

[ummm32]

You're partially right (because AGI really looks like VERY far away for the current status in theory publicly known), but it's not exactly like "magical thinking".

There are several public examples of radically more advanced theory/technology than the publicly known possible at a certain time/year, kept secret by governments / corps for a very long time (decades).

Lockheed achieved the blackbird decades before it was even admitted that a technology like that could even exist. But, looking backwards, it just looks like an "incremental" advance, but it wasn't, the engineering required to make fly the blackbird was revolutionary for the time when it was invented (back in the 50s / 60s ).

The Lockheed F-117 and its tech had a similar path, just somewhat admitted in late 80s (and this was 70s technology, probably based on theoretical concepts from the 60s).

More or less the same could be said about the tech in Blechtley Park: current tech / theory propelled to extraordinary capabilities by radical improvement achieved by new top secret advances in engineering. The hardware, events and advances ocurred in Bletchley Park were kept secret for years (I think just in the 50s they started to be carefully mentioned but not fully admitted, but nothing even close to the details currently found in the Wikipedia).

At any given time there could be a lot of theory/technology jump-aheads being achieved out there, several decades ahead of the publicly published/known, supposedly current, theory/technology.

[yozel]

The point is, we don't need to know how exactly consciousness work to create an AGI. In theory, we can just simulate all the neurons in the brain on a supercomputer cluster and voila, we have AGI. Of course, it's not that simple but you get my point.