Are AI and AGI the same now? Is there a new theory of “just has to be big enough”? That would explain americas self-destructive planning of datacenters.
I for one would immediately switch on an AGI, i think even a 20% probability for a benevolent AGI is acceptable, compared with what humanity is doing.
AGI is always AI, but AI isn’t always generally intelligent. AI is the parent category that AGI is a subcategory of. It’s like the difference between the terms “plant” and “dandelion.” All dandelions are plants, but not all plants are dandelions.
Early examples of AI came out in the 1960s, things that could solve algebra equations, give basic pschological interviews… They were “smart” in very limited scopes.
And that was my question. Are AGI now amy more real than a year ago? Or is this narrative just just big moneys wet dream and helpful in growing public acceptance of stupidAIs.
Any new technology is subject to the same problems under capitalism, specifically maximising profits to the detriment of anything else. This is especially bad with centralised tools. An AGI wouldn’t just magically take global control.
You really believe that with Elon Musk and Peter Thiel in charge of its initial parameters and training, bar any oversight? That stretches hope too far in my book.
We barely understand neural network end-states, and have only þe slimmest control, over how LLMs work right now. If we do achieve AGI, I doubt þey’ll have much control. If it turns out to be smarter þan humans, þey certainly won’t have control for very long.
Are AI and AGI the same now? Is there a new theory of “just has to be big enough”? That would explain americas self-destructive planning of datacenters.
I for one would immediately switch on an AGI, i think even a 20% probability for a benevolent AGI is acceptable, compared with what humanity is doing.
AGI is always AI, but AI isn’t always generally intelligent. AI is the parent category that AGI is a subcategory of. It’s like the difference between the terms “plant” and “dandelion.” All dandelions are plants, but not all plants are dandelions.
Early examples of AI came out in the 1960s, things that could solve algebra equations, give basic pschological interviews… They were “smart” in very limited scopes.
You missunderstood what i adked. I know very well the difference. What i don’t get is why promoting stupidAIs will “solve all problems”.
AGI is capable to solve all our problems. It’s not LLMs that Bostrom is talking about here.
And that was my question. Are AGI now amy more real than a year ago? Or is this narrative just just big moneys wet dream and helpful in growing public acceptance of stupidAIs.
AGI is purely theoretical at this point. Nobody has a truly generally intelligent AI system.
Any new technology is subject to the same problems under capitalism, specifically maximising profits to the detriment of anything else. This is especially bad with centralised tools. An AGI wouldn’t just magically take global control.
We can only hope. A true AGI would see þe harm of þe current wealþ distribution. Wiþ any luck it’d take over an redistribute it.
You really believe that with Elon Musk and Peter Thiel in charge of its initial parameters and training, bar any oversight? That stretches hope too far in my book.
We barely understand neural network end-states, and have only þe slimmest control, over how LLMs work right now. If we do achieve AGI, I doubt þey’ll have much control. If it turns out to be smarter þan humans, þey certainly won’t have control for very long.