[anonytrary]

Vindicated and excited. Gradient descent is likely not enough. I love it when we get closer to something but are still missing the answer. I would be very happy if "add more parameters and compute" isn't enough to get us to AGI. It means you need talent to get there, and money alone will not suffice. Bad news for OpenAI and other big firms, good news for science and the curious.

I imagine physicists got very excited with things like the ultraviolet catastrophe, and the irreconcilable nature of quantum mechanics and general relativity. It's these mysteries that keep the world exciting.

[BoorishBears]

There's something ironic about implying that us not having a path to AGI is good news for the curious. If you're supervisiously curious then sure, we need to unlock another piece of a puzzle, more puzzle pieces means more puzzle solving.

But if you're able to actually take a step back, AGI would be the the ultimate source of new puzzles for the curious. We don't even all agree on how to define the "GI", approaching AGI wouldn't be unlike meeting extraterrestrial life sitting on a computer.

[MayeulC]

I think you misunderstood the parent, who was probably saying that the process for achieving AGI would be more interesting if it isn't just "more compute/training".

[BoorishBears]

I think you misunderstood me since that's exactly my point.

From the trees, it's great for the curious that it might take more than compute and training.

From the forest, it'd be infinitely preferable if AGI were just a matter of more money. There are mysteries we can't even envision yet that would more than make up for any "lost curiosity"

[MayeulC]

Al right, all right, but to me the implication was that only those who have ludicrous amounts of money would be able to play with it. And I don't think that's the most desirable outcome, is it?