Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by yunwal 5 hours ago
> "by definition"

Who's definition are we talking about here

2 comments

The definition of AGI?
Nobody has mentioned AGI in this thread until this comment. And either way, there's no evidence that AGI as you're defining it is going to be solved anytime soon. Sam Altman and Dario may claim it will to pump their incoming IPOs, but outside of la la land, OpenAI and Anthropic aren't making any big robotics plays, which leaves a huge chunk of the "G" in AGI completely unattended to.
Literally Sam and Dario's.
Ok, the 2 CEOs want investors to believe their technology is all-powerful. Is that assessment worth anything?
I wasn't saying it is or isn't.

But it unambiguously is who is leading the promise to replace labour; it is whose bullshit is provoking the backlash.

It is whose variously-confident definition of near-term AGI involves completely eliminating a large enough shar of jobs that Altman thinks he has to talk about UBI and fund pilot studies so he doesn't lose all his cool California friends.

It is who has set the tone for the entire punditsphere and everyone who emulates them.

Their definition is the one the media and governments have swallowed; they need the fear so they get regulatory capture.

I will tell you that I think though: I think Sam Altman should be nowhere near the power and proximity to power that he has, band I think Dario Amodei would be better off tucked away in a research unit where the only person who has to listen to him tolkien bollocks is his immediate boss.

I think they are manipulating truly grotesque amounts of fear that are in many ways worse than the fear we felt in the COVID pandemic, and I think they are doing it for money and power.

But I also think people have listened and the message has not got through to tech people that they aren't good people and they are fucking weird.