KI-Superintelligenz ist eine Fantasie aus dem Silicon Valley, sagt der Ai2-Forscher

So does this mean it’s possible we went into ai years before we really should have, and are now left with overinflated spending from people thinking we’re at a tech level where we’d be able to have AGI in our pocket

> The problem, he explains, is that most of the discussion around AGI is philosophical.

This is the real problem. We can’t even fully define human consciousness, intelligence, awareness, etc. nor the mechanisms for how it works. The human brain runs on the power equivalent of a dim incandescent light bulb, yet is more powerful and capable than all the technology in the world, and we don’t know how. How can we expect to replicate something we don’t understand?

It solves rudimentary problems and is still quite dangerous. It never needed to be conscious.

Executives are so far divorced from the science. They believe they can will this tech into existence purely through collective industrial circle jerk.

More like…Sci-Fi.

All the tech Bros get together, do a bunch of cocaine, and fantasize about this

If it acts like a dog, guards like a dog, and barks like a dog then it is a dog for the purpose of keeping it as a pet.

Changing the definition or framing it as an ontological challenge will not solve the impact these system will have on society.

It is a meaningless debate and an intellectual masturbation. The goal should be whether the AI can do what we want it to do.

I really hate the fact that my brother lost his sanity to a LLM that is in fact, not even a bit intelligent.

This thing broke people, a lot

I remeber so many people claiming AGI was around the corner , months away a while after chatgpt was released. The more you read on LLM you will realise it’s not possible.. but yet they were 110% firmed.

AGI is just a selling point for the people at silicon valley… to get more money.

I think the key point in the article is exponential cost/computation growth to deliver linear improvements. It’s a dead end. Nobody needs a 3T parameter LLM if it’s only 5% better than 100B

Also ai super intelligence is a solar flare or emp away from being paperweight

To those saying it’s a fantasy or just science fiction, I highly encourage reading AI 2027 – a projection of how a recklessly developed and misaligned AGI/ASI system can be an existential danger – and a recently published book titled *If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies*, which is not as particular as AI 2027 about what path the future will take but states that current methods of developing AI systems (including chatbots) will lead to disaster. There’s also a nice condensed version of AI 2027 in [video form](https://youtu.be/5KVDDfAkRgc) on YouTube, summarized by Aric Floyd.

This isn’t to say that there isn’t a bubble, or that AGI is definitely around the corner; these two unrelated pieces of media written by experts in the same field converge on the same conclusion – that if we decided to go full steam ahead in this AI arms race with little regard to safety and and understanding, and carelessly hand over more and more power/control over our lives to a seemingly safe and capable AI, this could very well end up being catastrophic for humans.

To quote Helen Toner, former OpenAI board member:

> „dismissing discussion of superintelligence as ’science fiction‘ should be seen as a sign of total unseriousness. Time travel is science fiction. Martians are science fiction. ‚Even many skeptical experts think we may well build it in the next decade or two‘ is **not** science fiction.“

Keep in mind that this is very much an open debate. Some people say AGI will be safe. Some say AGI can and will kill us. Some say AGI won’t be possible. My opinion is that it’s simply much better to be safe than sorry, and that we should incorporate safeguards through legislation and acquire better understanding of these systems right now before we accidentally crack open Pandora’s box while looking for the next billion dollar investment.

I’m gonna make this comment even though I know it probably won’t be received well here. First of all, it’s clear that a lot of people in the comments didn’t actually read the article because the article’s main claim is not that we don’t have the theoretical technological framework for super intelligence, it’s that the current computational substrate wouldn’t support super intelligence if the only plan is to scale existing models. 

Second, there are a lot of people who don’t think that LLMs have any kind of intelligence at all, when this is observably untrue. Current LLMs have shown capabilities on a variety of benchmarks that attempt to test things like generalizability, ability to do graduate level mathematics, ability to do software engineering, ability to do economically valuable knowledge work, and more. And the people who construct these benchmarks aren’t stupid; the test sets for the benchmarks are constructed to minimize the likelihood of training set contamination.

You don’t have to uncritically consume every claim made by tech ceos about how the technology will usher in a post scarcity utopia or whatever other nonsense, but you have to keep your head out of the sand and be aware about the state of the technology so that you aren’t blindsided when we have massive white collar unemployment in a few years.