Don’t believe the hype: AGI is far from inevitable | Radboud University
www.ru.nl
Will AI soon surpass the human brain? If you ask employees at OpenAI, Google DeepMind and other large tech companies, it is inevitable. However, researchers at Radboud University and other institutes show new proof that those claims are overblown.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/20858435

Will AI soon surpass the human brain? If you ask employees at OpenAI, Google DeepMind and other large tech companies, it is inevitable. However, researchers at Radboud University and other institutes show new proof that those claims are overblown and unlikely to ever come to fruition. Their findings are published in Computational Brain & Behavior today.

  • @ContrarianTrail@lemm.eeEnglish
    11•8 months ago

    AGI is inevitable unless:

    1. General intelligence is substrate independent and what the brain does cannot be replicated in silica. However, since both are made of matter, and matter obeys the laws of physics, I see no reason to assume this.

    2. We destroy ourselves before we reach AGI.

    Other than that, we will keep incrementally improving our technology and it’s only a matter of time untill we get there. May take 5 years, 50 or 500 but it seems pretty inevitable to me.

        • @vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
          2•8 months ago

          because, having coded them myself, I am under no illusions as to their capabilities. They are not magic. “just” some matrix multiplications that generate a probability distribution for the next token, which is then randomly sampled.

          • @ContrarianTrail@lemm.eeEnglish
            3•8 months ago

            You seem to be talking about LLMs now and I’m not. LLMs being a dead end is perfectly compatible with what I just said. We’ll just try a different approach next then. Even the fact of realising they’re a dead end is yet another step towards AGI.

            • @vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
              2•8 months ago

              yeah, so that means that it’s not incremental improvement on what we have that we need. That will get us nowhere. We need a (as yet unknown) completely different approach. Which is the opposite of incremental improvement.

              • @ContrarianTrail@lemm.eeEnglish
                3•8 months ago

                I didn’t say we need to improve on what we have. We just need to keep making better technology which we will keep doing unless we destroy ourselves first.

    • Vodulas [they/them]
      2•8 months ago

      Not really a good comparison. The steam engine was an extant technology at that point. AGI is not, and we really no idea if/when it will be. One thing is clear though, it is not as close on the horizon as tech bros want us to think it is.