Hacker News Reader

Comment by breuleux | Hacker News Reader

I don't think we can be confident that this is how it works. It may very well be that our level of intelligence has a hard limit to how many nines we can add, and AGI just pushes the limit further, but doesn't make it faster per se.

It may also be that we're looking at this the wrong way altogether. If you compare the natural world with what humans have achieved, for instance, both things are qualitatively different, they have basically nothing to do with each other. Humanity isn't "adding nines" to what Nature was doing, we're just doing our own thing. Likewise, whatever "nines" AGI may be singularly good at adding may be in directions that are orthogonal to everything we've been doing.

Progress doesn't really go forward. It goes sideways.

View on HN

Intuition of someone who has put in a decade or two of wondering openly can't me discounted as easily as someone who might be a beginner to it.

AGI to encompass all of humanity's knowledge in one source and beat every human on every front might be a decade away.

Individual agents with increased agency adequately covering more and more abilities consistently? Seems like a steady path that can be seen into the horizon to put one foot in front of the other.

For me, the grain of salt I'd take Karpathy with is much, much, smaller than average, only because he tries to share how he thinks and examines his own understanding and changes it.

His ability to explain complex things simply is something that for me helps me learn and understand things quicker and see if I arrive at something similar or different, and not immediately assume anything is wrong, or right without my understanding being present.

Adding nines to nature is exactly what humans are doing. We are nature. We are part of the natural order.

Anything that exists is part of nature, there can be no exceptions.

If I go burn a forest down on purpose, that is in fact nature doing it. No different than if a dolphin kills another animal for fun or a chimp kills another chimp over a bit of territory. Insects are also every bit as 'vicious' in their conquests.

It's also assuming that all advances in AI just lead to cold hard gains, people have suggested this before but would a sentient AI get caught up in philosophical, silly or religious ideas? Silicone investor types seem to hope it's all just curing diseases they can profit from, but it might also be, "let's compose some music instead"?

AI doesn't have hopes and desires or something it would rather be doing. It has a utility function that it will optimise for regardless of all else. This doesn't change when it gets smarter, or even when it gets super-intelligence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com