[talldayo]

> High-intelligence AGI is the last human invention

Citation?

...or are you just assuming that AGI will be able to solve all of our problems, appropos of nothing but Sam Altman's word? I haven't seen a single credible study suggest that AGI is anything more than a marketing term for vaporware.

[mrmetanoia]

Their marketing hyperbole has cheapened much of the language around AI, so naturally it excites someone who writes like the disciple of the techno-prophets

" High-intelligence AGI is the last human invention" What? I could certainly see all kinds of entertaining arguments for this, but to write it so matter of fact was cringe inducing.

[wildermuthn]

It’s true by definition. If we invent a better-than-all-humans inventor, then human invention will give way. It’s a fairly simple idea, and not one I made up.

[jcgrillo]

> then human invention will give way

What? Would you mind explaining this?

[wildermuthn]

It’s analogous to the automobile. People do still walk, bike, and ride horses, but the vast majority of productive land transportation is done by automobile. Same thing with electronic communication vs. written correspondence. New tech largely supplants old tech. In this case, the old tech is human ingenuity and inventiveness.

I don’t think this is a controversial take. Many people take issue with the premise that artificial intelligence will surpass human intelligence. I’m just pointing out the logical conclusion of that scenario.

[paulryanrogers]

Arguably cars have so many externalities they will bankrupt the earth of cheap energy sources. Walking is at least hundreds of millions of years old, and will endure after the last car stops.

Likewise (silicon based) AGI may be so costly that it exists only for a few years before it's unsustainable no matter the demand for it. Much like Bitcoin, at least in its original incarnation.

[talldayo]

Cars never got us anywhere a human couldn't reach by foot. It just commoditized travel and changed our physical environment to better suit cars.

I really don't see any reason to believe "AGI" won't just be retreading the same thoughts humans have already had and documented. There is simply no evidence suggesting it will produce truly novel thought.

[jcgrillo]

I don't know whether it's a controversial take or not, but I can't see how if one day the machine magically wakes up and somehow develops sentience that it follows logically that human intelligence would somehow "give way". I was hoping for a clear explanation of mechanically how such a thing might happen.