I agree, short term memory, and long term learning, will avoid hallucinations, it does look like gpt3+ WolframAlpha seems to have solved this problem, although it's not a perfect solution, but will do for now.

I'm very much an immediate takeoff proponent when it comes to ASI. Not only can it think at light speed (humans tend to think at about the speed of sound) it has immediate access to the internet, it can duplicate itself over and over as long as there is sufficient hardware, and it's able to expand its knowledge infinitely expandable as long as you have more hard drive space.

With these key concepts, and again I'm assuming an agent that can act and learn like a human, I just don't see how it would not immediately super human in its abilities. It's self improvement might take a few years, but as I say, I just think it's ability to out class humans would be immediate.

The next step is real-time experiential data, from live video cameras, robot bodies, self-driving cars.

This is my guess as well, but I think it's much less certain than AGI happening quickly from this point. We know human intelligence is possible, and we can see that we're pretty close to that level already with LLMs (relative to other intelligences that we know of, like animals).

But we know of exactly 0 superintelligences, so it's impossible to be sure that it's as easy to achieve as human-level intelligence (let alone if it's even possible). That being said, it might not matter whether or not qualitative superintelligence is possible, since we could just make millions of AGIs that all run much faster than a human brain. Quantity/speed instead of quality

Self-improving AGI will be followed by ASI so quickly we'll be standing around like a pack of sheep wondering where the sheepdog came from.

It's a game, that is the context.

Games train you in useful, transferable skills.

I disagree with the notion that one should replace their real life with an unreal life on the internet.

Additionally, I used to play WoW myself, and every time I did, I was always the least healthy and was more unhappy overall than ever.

Which is why I now seek to extract what is so enthralling about games like WoW and pull that into the real world, while not eliminating games or virtual experiences.

Like, imagine if we built ironforge under the Colorado rockies, and linked it up with Khazad dum! Heh. That would be physically possible with artificial superintelligence. Then we could drink beer under the mountain, swordfight and party after a day doing things like crafting real things that fit that environment.

It's just that I think there is real value in the real, and supposing that we are in a sort of matrix only motivates me to want to try to break past a layer in such a matrix.

LOL

I like your mentality, OP. I have absolutely no idea how it works and I think I disagree with it on a really fundamental level, but it's at least very different from the usual redditor fare, and it's making me think really damn hard.

> they exceed others and these “dummies” pretending to be real people with boring lives or bad jobs give YOU a sense of superiority, jobbers as they are called in wrestling

I think you are overestimating how much people think about each other's lives.

I can see humans retreating into video games for other reasons, like, maybe you want to be able to hit on anyone and always be accepted or something. But purely to see other people have sadder lives than you? No, that in itself isn't a fantasy that I've ever seen video games sell. A better, more significant life than you have right now, absolutely, but not comparing your character to NPCs.

But okay, you sure do mow down a lot of mooks in some games, and that means that your life is clearly more important than theirs. Fair enough: A multiplayer game where one player is the hero and the others are grunts that go down in a few seconds wouldn't be very interesting.

... and I guess I'll grant you that. I'd have to do some work to probe out the distinction to really figure out the difference, but I do think it's there. Well. At least now, Maybe future video game technology will change what experiences are fun, and it turns out that people do enjoy games where they compare themselves to NPCs with shitty jobs.

It does if you say “gapt”. Gapt, apt, draft.

Lots of "downvote because disagree" assholery, mainly.

Reddit just sucks. It's designed to make people mad and poison people's minds with rage and bandwagoning.

I really struggle to see a hurdle on the horizon that will stop AGI from happening this decade, let alone in the next 3 years. It seems the only major problems is hallucination of truth and memory loss. I think both are solved by using retrieval datasets in a smart way.

ASI, on the other hand, definitely might be many years away. Personally I think it will happen this decade also, but that's less certain to me than AGI. Definitely possible that becoming significantly smarter than humans is really really difficult or impossible, although I imagine it isn't.

It will probably also be an extinction-level event. If not the first ASI, then the 5th, or the 10th, etc. Only way of humanity survival is if the first ASI gains a "decisive strategic advantage", as Nick Bostrom would call it, but uses that advantage to basically take over the entire world and prevent any new dangerous ASIs from being created

The thing that stood out to me is that he keeps saying he's not afraid of competition. He seems way too self-assured, like he's secretly laughing at it.

That kind of confidence can only come from knowing you have something big in the works, maybe not right now but it's coming.

I will be messaging you in 2 years on 2025-01-20 16:39:15 UTC to remind you of this link

2 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.

^(Parent commenter can ) ^(delete this message to hide from others.)

I hope so, only time will tell…

!RemindMe 2 years

>> people are being absolute jerks.

Err, not really.

I scanned almost all the comments ... very high decency-to-jerk ratio.

It could possibly happen this decade, but I think that saying it's a certainty to do so is very optimistic. I personally doubt it will.

But I do think it's an almost certainty that it will happen this century. I think most AI researchers would agree with this statement, but not with it being a foregone conclusion this decade.

>My layman's guesstimate is that the next major architectural design is going to happen this year.

You may be right, but a design is speculative until it can be built and tested, and that will take some time.

Because GPT-3 was trained on almost all publicly available data and GPT-4 will be trained by transcribing all video footage on the internet and feeding it to it.

You can't scale the model up without scaling the training data with it. The bottleneck is the training data and we're running out of it.

It's not like the internet is suddenly going to 10x in size over the next couple of years. Especially as the global population is shrinking and most people are already connected online so not a lot of new data is made.

>we simply don't have enough data on the collective internet for us to keep scaling it further than that.

Why do we need more data? We already have a lot.

We now need to work on the run-time aspects more e.g. short and long term memories etc.

Some say that ChatGPT is "just a database which spits out the most probable next word".

These naysayers should dive into how the transformer systems really work

It's clear (to me at least) that these systems embody most/much of what a true AI needs.

That linked article covers the next steps towards AI comprehensively.

Is studying AGI even a thing, though? AGI does not exist yet and could never do so (potentially), so I'm not sure how one can study something nonexistent. To have theories, sure, but that's another thing.

I feel that symbolic thinking still needs to be solved, but maybe this is an emergent property.

>AGI experts

No such thing yet since AGI doesn't exist. Even when it does, there are still going to be many more paths to AGI in my opinion, so it may be quite a while before anyone can be considered an expert in AGI. Even the term is new and lacks a solid definition.

I don't think they are honestly. They may know some of the intracacies and difficulties of their specific problem and then project that it will be that difficult to make progress in other subdomains. Which is probably true, but they also tend to underestimate the efforts other groups are putting in and the progress that can happen in other subdomains, which isn't always linear. So imo, they aren't really qualified to give an accurate prediction because very few have actually even studied the problem. I'd trust the people who have actually studied the problem, these are AGI experts and tend to be much more optimistic than the AI field overall.

https://pastebin.com/Xf1R0u4M

Scaling up transformer models like GPT aren't going to result in AGI. Almost every AI expert including the researchers working at OpenAI agree with this.

We need a new architecture, one with both short term and long term memory, multi-modality and less need for training data for us to reach AGI.

The current path of scaling up transformer models will stagnate at GPT-4 or GPT-5 because we simply don't have enough data on the collective internet for us to keep scaling it further than that.