This is genuinely so strange to me. I wouldn't generally mind that one has to somehow prove themselves to be able to join but just to humiliate other because it's something you had to endure few years earlier makes no sense to me and I don't want anything to do with a club that does that. I'm far more likely to find likeminded people within the group who chose not to join for the same reason.
As with most things like this it's probably a spectrum rather than something you either are or are not. It's easy to tell when someone is in the far end of that spectrum but the line where it officially crosses into psychopathy is always going to be arbitrary.
You don't seem very interested in sticking to the topic, do you? This conversation has been all over the place, complete with ad-hominems, concern-trolling, red herrings, strawmen, gish galloping - as if you're trying to break some kind of record.
It's pretty clear you've built up a cartoon-villain version of me in your head and now you're fighting that imagined version like it's real. I made a pretty simple claim about AGI, you've piled an entire story on top of it, and now you're demanding I defend views I don't even hold.
I've been trying to have a good-faith conversation here, but if this is what you're going to keep doing, then I'll just move on.
I'm less certain about that than I am about AGI - there may be other ways to produce that same amount of energy with less effort - but generally speaking, yeah, it seems highly probable to me.
First you were implying that today’s AI would bring about AGI
I've never made such a claim. I've been saying the exact same thing since around 2016 or so - long before LLMs were even a thing. It's in no way obvious to me that LLMs are the path to AGI. They could be, but they don't have to be. Either way, it doesn't change my core argument.
My argument is that we'll incrementally keep improving our technology like we have done throughout human history. Assuming that general intelligence is not substrate dependent - meaning that what our brains are doing cannot be replicated in silicon - or that we destroy ourselves before we get there, then it's just a matter of time before we create a system that's as intelligent as we are: AGI.
I already said that the timescale doesn't matter here. It could take a hundred years or two thousand - doesn't matter. We're still moving toward it. It does not matter how slow you move. As long as you keep moving, you'll eventually reach your destination.
So, how I see it is that if we never end up creating AGI ever, it's either because we destroyed ourselves before we got there or there's something borderline supernatural about the human brain that makes it impossible to copy in silicon.
If you're just gonna keep ignoring every single point I make and keep rambling about unrelated shit, then there's nothing left to discuss here. If you actually had an argument, you would've made it by now.
Are we not moving toward AGI? Because from where I stand, I only see three scenarios: either AI research is going backwards, no progress is being made whatsoever, or we're continuing to improve our systems incrementally - inevitably moving toward AGI. Unless, ofcourse, you think we'll never going to reach it which I view as a quite insane claim in itself.
If we're not moving toward it, then I'd love to hear your explanation for why we're moving backwards or not making any progress at all.
Whether we're 5 or 500 years away from AGI is completely irrelevant to the people who worry about it. It's not the speed of the progress - it's the trajectory of it.
I still think they deserve some credit for at least trying to do the right thing. I don't envy the position they're in.
Everyone's rushing toward AGI. Trying to do it safely is meaningless if your competition - the ones who don't care about safety - gets there first. You can slow things down if you're in the lead, but if you're second best, it's just posturing. There is no second place in this race.
Anthropic founders are former OpenAI employees who left specifically because they disagreed with OpenAI's stance on this kind of stuff and they wanted nothing to do with it. If this is just a PR stunt then I don't see why they would've left OpenAI in the first place.
Anthropic was founded by former OpenAI employees who left largely due to ethical and safety concerns about how OpenAI was being run. This is just them sticking to their principles.
This is genuinely so strange to me. I wouldn't generally mind that one has to somehow prove themselves to be able to join but just to humiliate other because it's something you had to endure few years earlier makes no sense to me and I don't want anything to do with a club that does that. I'm far more likely to find likeminded people within the group who chose not to join for the same reason.