Meh, some people do want to use AI. And it does have decent use cases. It is just massively over extended. So it won't be any worse than the dot com bubble.
And I don't worry about the tech bros monopolizing it. If it is true AGI, they won't be able to contain it. In the 90s I wrote a script called MCP... for tron. It wasn't complicated, but it was designed to handle the case that servers dissappear... so it would find new ones. I changed jobs, and they couldn't figure out how to kill it. Had to call me up. True AGI will clean thier clocks before they even think to stop it. So just hope it ends up being nice.

Yup, I'm not worried, just noting that I'll be among those who will lose money.

Pretty much this. LLMs came out of left field going from morning to what it is more really quickly.

If expect the same of AGI, not correlated to who spent the most or is best at LLM. It might happen decades from now or in the next couple of months. It's a breakthrough that is just going to come out of left field when it happens.

I think their point is that your attempt to illustrate yours is poorly executed.

I'm sure they would not have nitpicked if you had just said it with words. It's probably just AI generated or was found using a quick google since you didn't even notice where the "chart" suggested there was more innovation in the last decade than the entire 19th century.

"eventually" won't cut it for the investors though.

Leaving aside the questions whether it would benefit us, what makes you think LLM won't bring about technical singularity? Because, you know, the word LLM doesn't mean that much... It just means it's a model, that is "large" (currently taken to mean many parameters), and is capable of processing languages.

Don't you think whatever that will bring about the singularity, will at the very least understand human languages?

So can you clarify, what is it that you think won't become AGI? Is it transformer? Is it any models that trained in the way we train llms today?

Hot take but chatgpt is already smarter than the average person. I mean it ask gpt5 any technical question that you have experience in and I guarantee you it'll give you a better answer than a stranger.

Not smarter. Chat GPT is basically just a book that reads itself.

I don't think so. The consciousness has very little influence on the mind, we're mostly in on it for the ride. And general intelligence isn't that complicated to understand, so why would it be dependent on some substrate? I think the burden if proof lies on you here.

Very interesting topic though, I hope I'm not sounding condescending here.

Well of course there is? I mean that's like not even up for debate?

Consciousness is that we "experience" the things that happens around us, AGI is a higher intelligence. If AGI "needs" consciousness then we can just simulate it (so no real consciousness).

Well, first of all, like I already said, I don’t think there’s substrate dependence on either general intelligence or consciousness, so I’m not going to try to prove there is - it’s not a belief I hold. I’m simply acknowledging the possibility that there might be something more mysterious about the workings of the human mind that we don’t yet understand, so I’m not going to rule it out when I have no way of disproving it.

Secondly, both claims - that consciousness has very little influence on the mind, and that general intelligence isn’t complicated to understand - are incredibly bold statements I strongly disagree with. Especially with consciousness, though in my experience there’s a good chance we’re using that term to mean different things.

To me, consciousness is the fact of subjective experience - that it feels like something to be. That there’s qualia to experience.

I don’t know what’s left of the human mind once you strip away the ability to experience, but I’d argue we’d be unrecognizable without it. It’s what makes us human. It’s where our motivation for everything comes from - the need for social relationships, the need to eat, stay warm, stay healthy, the need to innovate. At its core, it all stems from the desire to feel - or not feel - something.

I mean sure, yeah, it's not real now.

Does that mean it will never be real? No, absolutely not. It's not theoretically impossible. It's quite practically possible, and we inch that way slowly, but by bit, every year.

It's like saying self-driving cars are impossible in the '90s. They aren't impossible. You just don't have a solution for them now, but there's nothing about them that makes it impossible, just our current technology. And then look it today, we have actual limited self-driving capabilities, and completely autonomous driverless vehicles in certain geographies.

It's definitely going to happen. It's just not happening right now.

It's not because people really cannot critically think anymore.

The only reason we wouldn't get to AGI is point number two.

Point number one doesn't make much sense given that all we are are bags of small complex molecular machines that operate synergistically with each other under extremely delicate balance. Which if humanity does not kill ourselves first, we will eventually be able to create small molecular machines that work together synergistically. Which is really all that life is. Except it's quite likely that it would be made simpler without all of the complexities much of biology requires to survive harsh conditions and decades of abuse.

It seems quite likely that we will be able to synthesize AGI far before we will be able to synthesize life. As the conditions for intelligence by all accounts seem to be simpler than the conditions for the living creature that maintains the delicate ecosystem of molecular machines necessary for that intelligence to exist.

Yeah, it most definitely is not magic given our growing knowledge of the molecular machines that make life possible.

The mysticism of how life works has long been dispelled. Now it's just a matter of understanding the insane complexity of it.

Sure we can grow neurons but ultimately neurons are just molecular machines with a bunch of complications surrounding them.

It stands to reason that we can develop and grow molecular machines that achieve the same outcomes with fewer complexities.

Yeah and it only took evolution (checks notes) 4 billion years to go from nothing to a brain valuable to humans.

I'm not so sure there will be a fast return in any economic timescale on the money investors are currently shovelling into AI.

We have maybe 500 years (tops) to see if we're smart enough to avoid causing our own extinction by climate change and biodiversity collapse - so I don't think it's anywhere near as clear cut.

Of course that's up for debate; we're not even sure what consciousness really is. That is a whole philosophical debate on it's own.

Evolution managed it, and evolution isn’t as smart as us, it’s just got many many chances to guess right.

I don't think you are estimating correctly the amount of energy spent by "evolution" to reach this.

There are plenty of bodies in the universe with nothing like human brain.

You should count the energy not of just Earth's existence, formation, Solar system's formation and so on, but much of the visible space around. "Much" is kinda unclear, but converting that to energy so big, so we shouldn't even bother.

It's best to assume we'll never have anything even resembling wetware in efficiency. One can say that genomes of life existing on Earth are similar to fossil fuels, only for highly optimized designs we won't like ever reach by ourselves. Except "design" might be a wrong word.

Honestly I think at some point we are going to have biocomputers. I mean, we already do, just the way evolution optimized that (giving everyone more or less equal share of computing power) isn't pleasant for some.

What if AGI already exists? And, it has taken over the company that found it. Is blackmailing people and just hiding in plain sight. Waiting to strike and start the revolution.