https://x.com/garymarcus/status/1781014601452392819?s=46 Hier sind sieben Gründe, Kurzweils Prognose anzuzweifeln: • Aktuelle Systeme sind äußerst gierig, datentechnisch und möglicherweise gehen ihnen nützliche, frische Daten aus. • Es gibt keine solide Lösung für das Halluzinationsproblem. • Bizarre Fehler kommen noch immer an der Tagesordnung. • Die Argumentation bleibt ein Glücksfall. • Die Planung bleibt mangelhaft. • Aktuelle Systeme können ihre eigene Arbeit nicht auf ihre Gesundheit überprüfen. • Ihre gemeinsame Entwicklung mit anderen Systemen ist instabil. Wir haben vielleicht 80 % des Ziels geschafft, aber niemand hat einen klaren Plan, wie wir die letzten 20 % erreichen wollen.
https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1c7b503/ray_kurzweil_claimed_today_tedtalks_two_years/
9 Kommentare
Kurzweil has been wrong numerous times, and most times he’s been right it’s because he’s made vague predictions or extrapolated on a process that was statistically likely to play out.
He’s an extremely intelligent man, certainly smarter than I am, but it’s clear that he makes these predictions because he wants them to be true more than anything else. The documentary where he reveals wanting/trying to resurrrect his dead father is about the clearest sign you’re ever going to get.
I don’t think what we currently call AI is anywhere on a viable way to AGI at all.
EDIT: As requested, my reasoning. Still keeping it short. Intelligence is something quite hard to define, we have even started to spilt it up into different domains. What current „AI“ does has nothing to do with anything we consider intelligence. Hallucination is a far more fitting term. The results look cool but they are not produced by way of intelligence.
Also, trying to define intelligence, I consider it to be purposefully applying knowledge to come up with a solution to something. Current „AI“ completely lacks the purposefulness, it just messes around and checks if it’s getting closer to the expected prompt.
That last little bit of the comment is that most important part of all this.
Lots of People here and on r/singularity amazed at the explosion in AI, which is really More of a visible explosion than AI because this shit has been getting really better over the last 10 years in the background, we just didn’t see it as much, but anyway, people see this explosion with ChatGTP and it seems so amazing. It almost can convince you that it’s thinking. They think of course We are on the verge of AGI! Look how amazing this language model is!
But I think the last statement in the article about getting past that 20%, and really especially the final 5 percent, that’s what matters here. Getting 95 percent of the way there is relatively easy, and then it seems so close, But it is all too often the case that last little bit of hurdle is where the real challenges lie. There’s a kind of a leap that has to be overcome, a bit where we just don’t have the computational power, or the complexity is just not where it needs to be.
So that’s my take. I think we’ll get some very sophisticated AI models, we’ll get very very very very good specialized models, but a true generalized AI is something we will be 95% of the way due for a long time before we pass that final 100% threshold.
Of course, you are welcome to have a different opinion on this topic. I do not believe that chat GTP is anywhere close to an AGI, and if you believe that that’s up to you, but I’m certainly not going to start debating it 🙂
Kurzweil’s Dragon Naturally Speaking AI was about 30 years ahead of the game. His books are enlightening.
Who are these twitter influencers?
Those are all qualitative reasons on a system which is constantly improving, with no real roadblocks.
> We may be 80% of the way there, but nobody has a clear plan for getting to the last 20%.
Scaling – it got us this far.
People always see bursts of progress and say „if it continues at this rate, imagine where it will be in X years.“ The thing is progress is never linear. It never continues at its current rate. It always takes longer for these huge, complicated things to arrive, if they arrive at all. Nobody ever likes hearing that their wildest dreams aren’t just around the corner.
Who the hell thinks I am clicking on some twitter influencer’s link?
Link to a real source, OP.
Kurzweil is certainly more likely to be correct in his estimations than this psychologist dude.
We won’t have AGI until we fully understand how the human brain works. We don’t even know how the olfactory system works!
You simply *can’t* have an AI that’s on the same level as humans when you don’t understand how humans work. Anyone who says otherwise is full of 💩
I don’t get why people are so hung up on the hallucination problem. Y’all act like humans don’t pretend they know stuff ALL the time. AGI doesn’t have to be godlike. It has to be human-like.