>Yes. You're not really appreciating the notion of 'what most humans could do'. I'm not talking about what one little homo sapiens animal could do; that's fairly tiny and feeble in the overall consideration.

This is what the AGI is.

We're saying we can make an AI that has a set of skills broad enough, as measured by points on test benches that both humans and the machine can play - and the test bench is very broad covering a huge range of skills - that it beats the average human.

That's AGI. It is empirically as smart as an average human.

No one is claiming it will be smarter than more than 1 'little homo sapiens animal' in version 1.0, though obviously we expect to be able to do lots better at an accelerating rate.

I expect we may see agi before 2030, by this definition.

As for self replicating and taking over the universe: there is a reason to think the industrial tasks for factories, etc, are easier than say original art. So even the first AGI would be able to do all the robotic control tasks that could take over the universe, albeit it likely wouldn't have the data for many of the steps that humans didn't write down.

>Also, how in the heck can you have a 'non emotional argument'? What even is that? I was captain of my high school debate team way back when, I take a keen interest in politics, I have studied university level maths and chemistry and watched professors dispute with each other, but I have never, ever seen a non emotional argument before.
>
>Are you trying to pretend that you don't have any emotions when you 'think rationally', because you, unlike me, and the rest of the 'common rabble', are a 'clear and intelligent thinker'? That's cute if so; very quaint.

Arrguments like "numbers, math, irreducible complexity. Saying there isn't enough compute. Saying that AI companies right now are soon going to hit a wall because <your reason> and that funding will get pulled."

When you say you studied "university level maths and chemistry" but you didn't mention CS or machine learning, you're making a weak non emotional argument. (because you aren't actually qualified to have the opinion you claim)

When you say " That's cute if so; very quaint." that's an appeal to emotion.

Or "Are you trying to pretend that you don't have any emotions when you 'think rationally', because you, unlike me, and the rest of the 'common rabble', are a 'clear and intelligent thinker'?". Same thing. Because sure, everyone has emotions but some people are able to do math and determine if an idea is going to work or not.

We should alway as have been searching for assumptions and asking questions of all data presented to us. You are not qualified to be an expert in 99% of fields just because you have access to raw data.

I mean medical tourism might not have access to the best stuff. Today this is true, it's just that the best medicine is not much more effective than cheaper simpler stuff. (Mainly because there are no treatments for aging or treatments that grow you spare parts and transplant them)

Once it's a matter of very complex treatments you may see huge differences. As in, the good clinics have almost 100 percent 10 year survival rates and the bad have 50.

I joined this sub recently as a fan of dalle and midjourney and look to this sub as a front row seat of other people with positive interests in how technology progresses!

You might want to check out a book like Superintelligence by Nick Bostrom, it could fill in a lot of the blanks for you. But its more about paths to the singularity than the singularity itself. The problem is we don't really know what is going to happen when we reach very rapid technological progress. That's why there is so much speculation and not any actual knowledge of what will happen.

[deleted]

[removed]

There's entire communities of people who strive for super early retirement. Check out /r/leanfire or /r/fire for countless examples of people retiring in their 30's and 40's.

Thanks!

ChatGPT grew +100,000 in 4 weeks. Now +160,000K. So trends are up for sure. :-)

That's the reason. ChatGPT just got loved by MSM. So now AI is hot! :-)

>I feel that very soon it will be indistinguishable whether or not something was AI generated.

I disagree, fortunately this state of affairs won't last for long before AI keeps improving and surpasses rather than merely matching human capabilities, leaving AI-generated content as extremely immediately recognizable. It'll be better than the human-generated content. That's the defining trait to look for.

and no creating a library is not like working in one

yeah but people here saying if you know enough about it it loses its mystique.

>In that context you are implying that LLMs will be like the Industrial Revolution and replace our need to think.

To play devil's advocate, there are a lot of applications specifically for LLMs (and other AI applications) that could easily end up replacing a lot of "thinking human"-type jobs or tasks. Typing up reports, contract evaluation, code translation, etc. There are plenty of jobs that today require human thought and intuition that are the mental equivalent of manual labor. The kind of tasks that would previously go to "junior" positions in a lot of fields.

There would obviously still be people involved, but the AI in question is replacing a lot of the (thinking) manpower that previously would have been required. Same way a few farm workers can till 100s of acres of fields with the assistance of industrial machinery.

Or the way computers replaced the rooms filled with dozens upon dozens of women running manual calculations for accounting firms.

Even if we never moved beyond the current types AI tech we're seeing today, and only continued making it better and more efficient (without any kind of "AGI revolution"). The implications as far as force-multiplication do seem fairly similar to many previous revolutionary technologies.

GPT-3 has been around for a couple years, but it's also only been a couple years, long in tech, but not long at all for human-scale development of brand-new stuff. It's also an early version of tech that's only in recent years becoming sophisticated enough to actually be useful (that the public knows about).

Most importantly. It's also not a complete product, but the backbone for a potential product (ChatGPT being an early alpha for something like an actual product). Even if GPT-3 itself was ready for prime time (which I don't think it is), it would still take years before products were developed on it that began to actually change the game.

The iPhone was conceptualized many years before actually reaching it's final design and being released. It was also built on mobile technology that existed before it and on the backs of many previous mobile touchscreen devices. And even at that point only became widely recognized as the truly revolutionary product it was (as opposed to just a really cool phone) once the smartphone revolution actually kicked off a few years later.

This applies to AI's working in other verticals as well. Making what was previously only possible (or not possible) with a ton of people or computational power, possible with far far less. We don't have the insight to understand the full scope of implications yet.

It may already be here.

Hmm interesting; thanks for checking! Maybe it’s just me then on another manic rabbit hole “research” binge haha … I feel lately that I can’t even seem to get ~enough~ solid info on Singularity because the google results are all either too basic, or too nuanced w/ very little middle-ground. Do you have any simple suggestions for me on which keywords/resources to use? (For reference: i’m nonverbally challenged so anything with complex formulas & mathematical jargon confuses me)

That’s different than the hype though. What you are describing is personal. That would be like saying i am a librarian (if i was) and I still get excited by the possibilities of the library.

if you consider agi or asi beings "members" then you might be right.

Then per the point of the thread, I think that’s a matter of definition. One could say the AI revolution started in the 60s with the internet or in 30s with first digital computer. Maybe those were the shitty water pumps.

This is a preview from a 13 track album the Ai improvised. I'll be releasing a full album soon.

https://youtu.be/DvAAd5s0cu8

So i had no involvement in any of the production.

Actually checked, surprisingly I didn't see anything standing out for singularity or AGI

I’m in a lot of AI-related subs, so this month I got a post from y’all in my feed as “recommended”, so I joined… and i’m glad I did! I would’ve joined earlier if I’d heard of y’all sooner but alas, my home page is perpetually clogged with random bs.

I’d love to see a thorough google-trend graph of “the singularity” and/or any keywords adjacent to that - I’d imagine there’s likely an exponential uptick of recent growth there there as well!

I think that’s a good simple way of putting it, though I would say there’s a silent majority of people who are in the middle either having a more neutral pov or taking both optimism and pessimism in stride

Sometimes depressing thoughts have come from people spouting excitement though - excited by the tech while depressed by the potential changes.

So i wouldn’t say all of those who are having a more tempered reaction means they are depressed or not trying to be uplifting -> could be they are trying to be rational.