> The architecture might just be wrong for AGI. LeCun’s been saying this for years: LLMs trained on text prediction are fundamentally limited. They’re mimicking human output without human experience.
Yes, and most with a background in linguistics or computer science have been saying the same since the inception of their disciplines. Grammars are sets of rules on symbols and any form of encoding is very restrictive. We haven't come up with anything better yet.
The tunnel vision on this topic is so strong that many don't even question language itself first. If we were truly approaching AGI anytime soon, wouldn't there be clearer milestones beforehand? Why must I peck this message out, and why must you scan it with your eyes only for it to become something else entirely once consumed? How is it that I had this message entirely crystalized instantly in my mind, yet it took me several minutes of deliberate attention to serialize it into this form?
Clearly, we have an efficiency problem to attack first.
The most interesting thing in this whole picture is not AGI, it's how the collective intelligence works. CEOs claim the AGI is near because that's how they manipulate the public. But the public knows that it's only a manipulation. So how come the manipulation is still possible?
It feels like any time scale on AGI is basically just made up. Since no one has any idea of how to get there, how could you possibly estimate how long it will take? We could stumble on some secret technique that unlocks AGI tomorrow or it could be literally impossible. You might as well ask how long until humans can cast magic spells.
It's not quite the same category as magic spells. Kurzweil's prediction has been for 2029 for the last thirty years or so based on Moore's law type stuff. The logic I think is roughly project the hardware improvements, which has worked well, and then add on about five years to sort the software. Time will tell on the second one.
"AGI" was hijacked to mean something else and was turned into a scam.
What it "really means" is more mass layoffs to power AI infrastructure for that to power so-called "AI agents" to achieve a 10% increase in global unemployment in the next 5 years.
From the "benefit of humanity", then to the entire destruction of knowledge workers and now to the tax payer even if it costs another $10T to bailout the industry from staggeringly giant costs to run all of it.
Once again, AGI is now nothing but a grift. The crash will be a spectacle for the ages.
Whether or not that question is interesting is hardly relevant in this particular discussion. Companies building this technology are marketing it as if computers can think. They're telling us they can, and people are buying into it based on that claim.
So that quote doesn't reconcile the extraordinary claims of one side with the skepticism of the other.
And also, no disrespect to Dijkstra, but that sentiment is a bit shortsighted. If we could make computers think, it would have a profound impact on humanity. This is why there is so much excitement around this. We've been imagining this scenario for centuries, and we hope that this time around we can finally crack it. So comparing that achievement with something we can produce with classical technology is... uninspiring? Underwhelming? Selling ourselves short? I can't quite put it into words, but the possibility of answering that question would certainly be very interesting.
> and people are buying into it based on that claim.
I say this remains to be seen. You know that a lot of times you see the expression "AI" in the news. it comes followed by the word "bubble", right? If we see a big crash on the AI companies stocks we'll have proof that people aren't buying. And I strongly believe we'll see this crash and I think smart people aren't buying it.
OTOH, I think we need to be careful with the usage of the word "think". Dijkstra would probably give it a very broad meaning, going from French Impressionism, Bach and Shakespeare to Relativity Theory, Evolution Theory or Quantum physics, maybe even to Maradona's or Johan Cruyft's feet (Dijkstra was Dutch, remember). Computers and AI might go very deep in their "think" but will be very, very bad at the broad game. Frankly, I don't see how Markov Chain based technologies (e.g LLMs and most of AI today) can stop being replicators and start being innovators.
It is a bit like Pablo Picasso's quotation: "Computers are useless, they can only provide us answers".
Outside of internet debates I don't believe it matters. Much like the discussion of when machines will be treated like people, that's already happening without applying a definition.
It seems to me by most classical definitions we've basically already reached AGI.
If I were to show Gemini 3 Pro to anyone in tech 10 years ago they would probably say Gemini 3 is an AGI, even if they acknowledged there was some limitations there.
The definition has moved so much that I'm not convinced that even if we see further breakthroughs over the next 10 years people will say we've finally reached AGI because even at that point it's probable there might still be 0.5% of tasks it struggles to compete with humans on. And we're going to have similar endless debates about ASI and the consciousness of AI.
I think all that matters really is utility of AI systems broadly within society. While a self-driving car may not be an AGI, it will displace jobs and fundamentally change society.
The achievement of some technical definition of AGI on the other hand is probably not all that relevant. Even if goal posts stop moving from today and advancements are made such that we finally get 51% of experts agreeing that AGI has been reached there could still be 49% of expert who argue that it hasn't. On the other hand, one will be confused about whether their job has been replaced by an AI system.
I'm sorry - I know this is a bit of a meta comment. I do broadly agree with the article. I just struggle to see why anyone cares unless hitting that 51/49% threshold in opinion on AGI correlates to something tangible.
According to Clarke's First Law, "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
With all due respect to Arthur C. Clarke, I think science education is the only thing standing between us and even bigger scams and absolute chaos in the streets.
What is understood by a scientist isn't so far ahead from what the layperson understands these days compared to when Clarke wrote that.
Could you please make your substantive points without breaking the site guidelines? They include:
"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Serious question. Do some of the large firms run LLM with no guardrails? I'm guessing they are doing constant research not available to the public. What results have been found? I'm not necessarily saying AGI, but what happens when the systems are not hindered by humans?
Also, somewhat related, the model/system that was reported by the Google whistleblower about LaMDA was very interesting for the time, especially considering the transcript. What happens when the guardrails are disabled? Even if it wasn't sentient, it's behavior might be reason for concern.
29 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 57.6 ms ] threadYes, and most with a background in linguistics or computer science have been saying the same since the inception of their disciplines. Grammars are sets of rules on symbols and any form of encoding is very restrictive. We haven't come up with anything better yet.
The tunnel vision on this topic is so strong that many don't even question language itself first. If we were truly approaching AGI anytime soon, wouldn't there be clearer milestones beforehand? Why must I peck this message out, and why must you scan it with your eyes only for it to become something else entirely once consumed? How is it that I had this message entirely crystalized instantly in my mind, yet it took me several minutes of deliberate attention to serialize it into this form?
Clearly, we have an efficiency problem to attack first.
>This isn’t a minor gap; it’s a fundamental limitation.
>His timeline? At least a decade, probably much longer.
>What does that mean? Simply throwing more computing power and data at current models isn’t working anymore.
>His timeline for truly useful agents? About ten years.
"AGI is not possible"
combined with
"Does this mean AI progress will stall? Absolutely not."
It may very well already be here, but the feedback loops are excruciatingly long and expensive.
What it "really means" is more mass layoffs to power AI infrastructure for that to power so-called "AI agents" to achieve a 10% increase in global unemployment in the next 5 years.
From the "benefit of humanity", then to the entire destruction of knowledge workers and now to the tax payer even if it costs another $10T to bailout the industry from staggeringly giant costs to run all of it.
Once again, AGI is now nothing but a grift. The crash will be a spectacle for the ages.
So that quote doesn't reconcile the extraordinary claims of one side with the skepticism of the other.
And also, no disrespect to Dijkstra, but that sentiment is a bit shortsighted. If we could make computers think, it would have a profound impact on humanity. This is why there is so much excitement around this. We've been imagining this scenario for centuries, and we hope that this time around we can finally crack it. So comparing that achievement with something we can produce with classical technology is... uninspiring? Underwhelming? Selling ourselves short? I can't quite put it into words, but the possibility of answering that question would certainly be very interesting.
I say this remains to be seen. You know that a lot of times you see the expression "AI" in the news. it comes followed by the word "bubble", right? If we see a big crash on the AI companies stocks we'll have proof that people aren't buying. And I strongly believe we'll see this crash and I think smart people aren't buying it.
OTOH, I think we need to be careful with the usage of the word "think". Dijkstra would probably give it a very broad meaning, going from French Impressionism, Bach and Shakespeare to Relativity Theory, Evolution Theory or Quantum physics, maybe even to Maradona's or Johan Cruyft's feet (Dijkstra was Dutch, remember). Computers and AI might go very deep in their "think" but will be very, very bad at the broad game. Frankly, I don't see how Markov Chain based technologies (e.g LLMs and most of AI today) can stop being replicators and start being innovators.
It is a bit like Pablo Picasso's quotation: "Computers are useless, they can only provide us answers".
Grok4 and Gemini 3 Pro top models are around the 125-130IQ range. They are rapidly moving towards ASI.
What a shift in the last 5 years (never -> 100 years -> 11)
Is there an RFC being developed for AGI?
If I were to show Gemini 3 Pro to anyone in tech 10 years ago they would probably say Gemini 3 is an AGI, even if they acknowledged there was some limitations there.
The definition has moved so much that I'm not convinced that even if we see further breakthroughs over the next 10 years people will say we've finally reached AGI because even at that point it's probable there might still be 0.5% of tasks it struggles to compete with humans on. And we're going to have similar endless debates about ASI and the consciousness of AI.
I think all that matters really is utility of AI systems broadly within society. While a self-driving car may not be an AGI, it will displace jobs and fundamentally change society.
The achievement of some technical definition of AGI on the other hand is probably not all that relevant. Even if goal posts stop moving from today and advancements are made such that we finally get 51% of experts agreeing that AGI has been reached there could still be 49% of expert who argue that it hasn't. On the other hand, one will be confused about whether their job has been replaced by an AI system.
I'm sorry - I know this is a bit of a meta comment. I do broadly agree with the article. I just struggle to see why anyone cares unless hitting that 51/49% threshold in opinion on AGI correlates to something tangible.
What is understood by a scientist isn't so far ahead from what the layperson understands these days compared to when Clarke wrote that.
"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Also, somewhat related, the model/system that was reported by the Google whistleblower about LaMDA was very interesting for the time, especially considering the transcript. What happens when the guardrails are disabled? Even if it wasn't sentient, it's behavior might be reason for concern.
For example, a "space race" might be "won" by the first participant to reach space, or to reach the moon
Is it possible to have a "race" without a time limit or a finish line or some way to determine the "winner"
My assumption is AGI will be redefined in a way that it's reached.