>I don’t see why the programmer wouldn’t just be the AI’s overseer,
We need orders of magnitude fewer AI overseers than we need humans to do the work of the AI. This will flip society on its head.
We need orders of magnitude fewer AI overseers than we need humans to do the work of the AI. This will flip society on its head.
We don’t miss the jobs. Indeed, our society would collapse if we needed that many farm workers today.
It will flip society on its head. For the better, as there is tons of additional productive capacity.
The latest thing I saw about it seemed to indicate that OpenAI was looking to build a dedicated nuclear power plant because AGI on current hardware might be possible with that much energy [1]. Even if they do crack AGI with that, it's not like its energy consumption will be justifiable.
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/openai-nuclear-fusion-ene...
Admittedly, my own argument in favor of near-term AGI is much less sophisticated but is also largely based on extrapolating trends and noting the leaps in capabilities that can come from singular architectural innovations. The GPT family has been amazingly productive, and they result from largely a single architectural innovation. They have glaring deficiencies, but their failures are fairly well understood and overcoming them are basically engineering problems at this point. Whereas 10 years ago no one had any idea how to get from the SOTA at the time to AGI, I see a clear path to it from here.
But that's a big "if." They seem to be parroting stuff without knowing or caring what's true.
Why would anyone need a human here when the AGI could do that too?