[an0malous]

You should add a parallel timeline of how many times AI CEOs have claimed their next model is too dangerous to release, AGI is months away, or some white collar job will be obsolete within 6 months.

I don’t know anyone in the tech industry who thinks AGI will never happen or that software engineering and white collar jobs can’t be automated. We all read sci fi, you’re not some unique visionary for anticipating AI. The frustration is with how much the claims have outpaced reality and how poorly the investors and executives have treated their workers during this transition.

[sanderjd]

Yeah reading this timeline wasn't satisfying to me for exactly this reason: It didn't give the counterarguments that were being made at the time of each "goalpost".

My (probably flawed, but still) memory is that the first one of these threads I participated in, at the end of 2022, was saying that none of us would have jobs after two more years of development of these models. Two years from then was almost two years ago now, and we're still "a year or two" out.

On the flip side, the thesis that these will be useful tools that will augment the work of software developers when understood and used for the things they are good at has (IMO) remained undefeated during this entire period.

[senordevnyc]

It’s true that AI hasn’t replaced us all in the last few years, but it’s completely changed software engineering, and honestly a LOT of that change has been in the last nine months or so. And it’s supposedly destroyed the market for juniors.

In the grand sweep of history, does it really matter if AI takes two years to replace us or ten years to replace us?

[sanderjd]

This is true, and it's also true that both boosters and doomers have consistently made incorrect predictions about the timeline.

[solumos]

I’ll go on record and say that AGI will never happen (in the next 50 years). I think that’s also the timeline for white-collar job automation that requires critical thinking.

[bryanlarsen]

The article is about goal post moving. Please provide a clear and concrete definition of AGI that we can judge your prediction by.

[solumos]

Google's definition is sufficient[0]. I'd also go so far as to say that LLMs aren't even AI, but that can be a bit pedantic. I align with Richard Sutton's reasoning, in that LLMs (and GPT models more generally) aren't "intelligent" in the same way that RL models are[1].

[0] - https://cloud.google.com/discover/what-is-artificial-general...

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21EYKqUsPfg

[anuramat]

how is GPT more general than LLM? also it's not really "LLM vs RL", they're kinda orthogonal

[solumos]

Small-language models also use GPT. And I agree it's not "LLM vs RL" and that they're orthogonal, however, RL has features that more clearly resemble intelligence.

[AnotherGoodName]

But the author acknowledged times that someone said something stupid about AI?

He's not claiming there's no flaws or that there aren't CEOs claiming more than is possible right now. He's making the point that these don't negate the parts that are genuinely impressive.

I've encountered waaaay too many "you can't possibly have done that with AI because AI occasionally hallucinates" and "CEOs say things for marketing therefore AI can't really do anything" type of posts.

[bluefirebrand]

Understandably, the frustration is also around "what happens then?"

Everyone is wondering about what happens if (when?) it finally comes true

We really have to figure out what comes next for your average person. I think the reason no one wants to talk about this is because the answers aren't great. The average person not going to be living a great life in all likelihood, once we have no access to capital anymore

[overgard]

Yup, that's the weird thing about the booster argument. "We finally achieved it, we're no longer important or the dominant species and Sam Altman and Dario Amodei run what's left of the world from their bunker!" Yay?

[matheusmoreira]

Either we achieve a post scarcity society, or we become a permanent underclass if not soylent. Those are the only outcomes I believe are possible.

[OtomotO]

If we don't have access to capital, we will abolish capital altogether.

This still backfire to the oligarchs

[danelski]

Are you sure the capital-enabled won't abolish us for trying to do so?

[OtomotO]

Capital loses all it's value the moment it's all in the hands of a few.

If people cannot even get a piece of the cake anymore, the cake doesn't hold any power over them.

So if the rich and powerful just hoard the money, they will lose.

If they hoard weapons: well, if they need people to operate the weapons (or serve them), they will still fall.

The thing is: They look invincible. They are not though. They are human, they bleed, they fear, they die just like the rest of us.

[inigyou]

That's true for money, but there are real capital resources whose ownership matters extremely. E.g. every part of food production.

[OtomotO]

People will not just lay down and wait for death's sweet embrace though.

There is a whole lot of people involved in food production and the owners can't own it without people willing to let them own it.

As soon as money is out of the equation many powerful lose their power.

[bluefirebrand]

They will certainly try, but they don't have the capability yet

It's probably a really bad idea to keep building them autonomous killing machines though

[danelski]

I wouldn't be surprised if multiple nation-states already had them without calling them such because 'Look, someone pushed a button 3 hours ago before it engaged'. Once the private capital gets their hands on them, we immediately transition to cyberpunk no matter what else happens in the world.

[malnourish]

Hyper proliferation of drones seems to end in a state of mutually assured destruction, from my armchair.

[inigyou]

The average person will not have any life in all likelihood. That is the end goal of capitalism. However, shortly after everyone dies, the remaining survivors - the likes of Musk, Thiel etc - will find themselves roughly equal and needing to establish a new hierarchy.

[dan_i]

> I don’t know anyone in the tech industry who thinks AGI will never happen or that software engineering and white collar jobs can’t be automated.

Chiming in to say that I believe:

1. AGI will never happen

2. Software engineering cannot be automated

To be honest I seriously doubt the reasoning capacity of anyone who believes in such a bold-faced lie as "AGI".

Typically these people seem to be working out a fantasy of enslaving tech workers.

[cyanydeez]

Yes, the problem is the FOMO of AGI and the psychosis that comes from the need to manipulate the market like a ever increasing tone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepard_tone

The bubble is this.

[runarberg]

You don’t know me, but I am in the tech industry and believe AGI will never happen.

Albeit that is because I did a BSc in psychology where I developed a deep distrust for intelligence research and concluded that intelligence is not a useful term in philosophy nor science (and especially not in engineering).

[27183]

I strongly agree. In scientific terms, we already know how to achieve 1G constant acceleration space flight. "All we need to do" from an engineering standpoint to achieve it is develop miniaturized fusion reactors and superconducting electronics. Hell, something approximately as good was achievable since the 1950s with a gargantuan ship that pooped out atomic bombs through a giant shock absorbing pusher plate[0]. Trivial, right? Except it isn't. Both of these projects, which are scientifically feasible, are completely impossible to actually build. They are off the table in engineering terms.

We are so much closer to 1G constant acceleration space flight than we are to AGI. We know, in principle, how to achieve 1G travel. We don't know, in principle how to achieve AGI. Our best guess so far is something along the lines of "emergence" which means "maybe if we do enough matrix math in the right way it'll wake up and become a being with agency and intelligence". Another way to say this is "hopes, prayers, and lots of GPUs".

Let's all get a grip. Without a coherent theory of intelligence, you aren't gonna make one in a lab. That's not how science works, it's not how engineering works. Start at the beginning.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propu...

[AndrewKemendo]

What’s your definition of AGI?

[henry2023]

Strong AGI would be a system capable of terraforming a planet without any external intervention.

I mean, we did it and there have been roughly 117 billion human beings with GI in all of existence.

[inigyou]

AGI is when an AI model can pass the Turing test. It was achieved with GPT-2.

[kemotep]

ELIZA could pass the Turing Test and is over 50 years older than GPT2. You are claiming we have had AGI available since before the first version of Unix came out?

[lnenad]

Literally every CEO AI or otherwise claims bullshit about their product. It's their job. It's got nothing to do with people actually using something and not coming to terms with it having any value. If you've never seen a screwdriver it's a waste of time compared to nails.

[an0malous]

“Everyone else is doing it” is a childish justification and there’s a line where this becomes fraud and a felony offense. Do you think Elizabeth Holmes should have been allowed to make up claims about their blood testing technology? Is it OK to grossly overestimate Claude’s capabilities when the US military starts using it to determine strike targets?

[lnenad]

I'm not justifying anything nor am I arguing against it. I'm saying it's not a thing worth mentioning as it's not related to AI in any way. If one would try to find AI related negatives go for datacentres, chip shortage/price hikes etc... So many better arguments to choose than just saying "CEO's are lying!!1!".

[newsoftheday]

Screwdrivers and nails are deterministic, AI is probabilistic. That is a significant distinction and why your analogy fails.

[shimman]

It's their job to lie and defraud the public? Why don't you believe there shouldn't be consequences for lying and defrauding the public? Do you believe tech CEOs are above society and decency? Does their wealth make them immune from accountability?

[lnenad]

Did I ever say any of those things?