Speak for yourself, I am dazzled by calculators!
In any case, I think this misses OP's point that LLM capabilities have rapidly made progress towards being more generally intelligent and capable, which is not true of most tech advances.
In any case, I think this misses OP's point that LLM capabilities have rapidly made progress towards being more generally intelligent and capable, which is not true of most tech advances.
> I do not understand how you can see what has happened in the last 3 years and say "it will not get us there" no matter what "there" is.
--
Your statement is something much weaker, and I would still question what exactly "general" means when AI capabilities are commonly accepted to be so "jagged".
The last 3 years of progress have been so explosive and, yes, general that it seems crazy to fully rule out dramatic future progress.
When people have a very narrow 'confidence interval' about their AI predictions, in either direction, it's difficult to trust them.
Nothing is gained by attacking strawmen. Of course there will be dramatic future progress. That does not entail that AGI will be achieved.
> I do not understand how you can see what has happened in the last 3 years and say "it will not get us there" no matter what "there" is.
and at the same time says
> When people have a very narrow 'confidence interval' about their AI predictions, in either direction, it's difficult to trust them.
and says
> The last 3 years of progress have been so explosive and, yes, general that it seems crazy to fully rule out dramatic future progress
and then moves those goalposts to "AGI, RSI, the apocalypse, whatever".
Fine ... let's not trust folks who are so confident that the progress in last 3 years entails that "it will get us there" where there includes AGI. Again, it's an argument against a strawman to say "it seems crazy to fully rule out dramatic future progress" -- everyone agrees that there will be dramatic future progress. But it's obnoxious naysaying to insist that "the last 3 years of progress" entails future AGI, when numerous people have explained why they think it doesn't. [Generally speaking, it's not a good idea to characterize as "crazy" people you're trying to persuade.]
And qualifiers matter ... so when someone says [emphasis added]
> yet we are not that dazzled by our calculators today (despite how useful they might be!)
it is yet another strawman argument to respond
> Speak for yourself, I am dazzled by calculators!
And on the "general" front, there's a big difference between AI that can address a wide range of problems -- what one might call gAI for varying values of "general" -- and AGI, an artificial replication of the sort of generalized intelligence found in human beings, who can learn to fish by being shown how to fish, or learn to repair an engine by being shown how to repair an engine, or learn how to play a game by being told the rules of the game, etc.
All of these statements say the same thing: "People are sure about a low upper confidence bound for future AI. My upper confidence bound about AI is high; the future is massively uncertain"
A PC of today can accomplish many more "general" tasks than one of 40 years ago. Much of the "why" is because of the huge infrastructure built up around them in the meantime. The abilities of LLMs to accomplish those same tasks through the PC is heavily piggybacking on that (both in the specific, with the existence of all the APIs and tools; and in the generic, using search engines to find specific sources and using that for instruction or troubleshooting).
In the world of "agents" much of the improvement appears to have been on a specific set of skills: impersonation of an 'I' that wants to accomplish a goal, and synthesizing existing information from documents with trial-and-error execution loops to move rapidly toward a solution much faster and with less boredom than a human would. The quality of the output when there is not a rapid-evaluation-and-validation harness lags considerably.
It's incredibly powerful automation but doesn't appear to be trending towards Matrix-style conscious AIs. The quality of an individual method written by the agent also is not particularly advanced compared to GPT-4 in early 2023, as far as I can tell—I was dabbling with trying to make such harnesses back then, where a major challenge was that the model itself was bad at staying on-track in a conversation, so instead much of that logic was moved to deterministic code, which was much more limited as it was super-tedious to enumerate all the necessary tool calls/etc to find its way out of corners. Staying on task is much better now, as is "read compiler error, fix try next thing" harness loop-handling. But the output remains—across Fable, Astra, whatever else I've tried—"iffy" in terms of the actual code structure on the first pass output. You can set it then on a different task to review and clean up the code, and it can do that well too, but it is a curious gap of generality where the "create" focus is much more limited than the "review" one (and conversely the "review" focus can make suggestions, but if it goes deep down the well of implementing them, loses that big-picture again).
If it kills us all, it will because someone decided to give the trial-and-error-loop-machine access to nukes or similar. The blame for that is on the "someone" not on some sort of "rogue" AI.
(I wonder if re-watching Terminator/Terminator 2 would support this sort of interpretation of it. Unlike in the Matrix, I don't think we get much sentient-AI POV/infodumping. Is it a plausible universe for "someone made ChatGPT control a fleet of soldier robots and gave it a bad harness with an insufficient sandbox"?)