When will there be AI superintelligence?

[bignose@sw-development-is.social]

I haven't a clue @evan.

What I am confident of, is that none of today's #AIBubble technology comes anywhere close, nor is it even pointed in the right direction.

[me@social.jlamothe.net]

@evan There won't. It's all a scam.

[beandev@social.tchncs.de]

@evan
Later... Much later.

[evan@cosocial.ca]

@me

Explain! What part is impossible?

You don't think it's possible for an entity to be more intelligent than a human?

Or is it not possible for a *constructed* entity to be more intelligent than a human?

Or are *humans* not smart enough to make a constructed entity that is more intelligent than a human?

[evan@cosocial.ca]

@rxp https://evanp.me/pollfaq#define

[evan@cosocial.ca]

@rxp

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superintelligence?wprov=sfla1

[evan@cosocial.ca]

@boz because of all the water and the energy that AI uses?

[evan@cosocial.ca]

@beandev explain!

[me@social.jlamothe.net]

@evan I don't think that it's possible for a glorified pile of linear algebra to think at all.

[draken@masto.nyc]

@evan
The 10th of Neveruary.

[andres@mastodon.hardcoredevs.com]

@evan @boz
This and also the current speed of the climate change.
Hardware costs for one (it's true that LLM companies can incur into massive amounts of debt to finance it but not forever)
Food and unstable weather after, will for sure disrupt people's life and their will to work.

[ct@app.wafrn.net]

@boz@mastodon.uno @evan@cosocial.ca

Pretty sure they mean like, in general

[y6nh@im-in.space]

@evan It's impossible to answer this without specific definitions of "AI" and "superintelligence". If AI is something that can write text and draw pictures in a way that is superficially like human output, and superintelligence means that it can do that faster than a human, then we've got it already. If not, then the answer is some time between tomorrow and never, depending on those definitions.

[beandev@social.tchncs.de]

@evan
In the context of "AI = LLM", never. In context of "AI = whatever we will find as technology" we will need decades to have the technology to simulate at least a simple brain (much simpler than a human brain).

The reason is that the neural networks that we map in silicon today make up only a fraction of a brain. Countless elements that make up our thinking, our consciousness, and our self-awareness are missing. Even our senses, which are necessary for these, can currently only be represented in a rudimentary way.

Currently, we only emulate knowledge through high speed and parallelization. But we have clear limits in this regard with ressources.

And knowledge is not intelligence. It is also only simulated.

[ct@app.wafrn.net]

@boz@mastodon.uno @evan@cosocial.ca

Turning it to something more concrete: do you think AGI is achievable through the same base approach as current-day LLMs?

[evan@cosocial.ca]

@ct @boz me? I'll answer after the end of the poll.

[boz@mastodon.uno]

@evan Yep

[owlyph@cosocial.ca]

@evan for a long time I've been strongly opposed to the possibility of AGI or superintelligence as mostly just simulation that people conflate with what humans do. I still find the arguments pretty unconvincing and usually neglecting a lot of the human experience but the past few years have made me question more the nature of what humans are doing BECAUSE of the patterns that make AI work. I'm intrigued by the regularity and depth of patterns exhibited across the outputs of human thinking.

[evan@cosocial.ca]

@draken why not? Physically impossible?

[evan@cosocial.ca]

@y6nH and yet one of the things that intelligent entities do that makes us interesting is that we can reason about vague concepts.