Comment by consumer451
15 hours ago
Can anyone explain to me the non-$$ logic for one working towards AGI, aside from misanthropy?
The only other thing I can imagine is not very charitable: intellectual greed.
It can't just be that, can it? I genuinely don't understand. I would love to be educated.
That's the old dream of creating life, becoming God. Like the Golem, Frankenstein...
Well, AGI could accelerate scientific and medical discovery, saving lives and impacting billions of people positively.
The potential downside is admittedly severe.
Would AGI actually be better than just giving all these dollars to various rote and boring sciences?
Bioscience is the next real revolution IMO. Figuring out our bodies as systems and how to program them will lead to a change bigger than information technology.
But what we need for that is not AGI. Bioscience suffers from a total lack of data. We only mapped the human genome a couple decades ago, and that's overselling it. We are currently in the process of slowly mapping out many proteins and receptors and interactions in the body.
We finally have the tooling to do that. We finally have the understanding to do that. What is limiting us right now is mostly the amount of graduate students being paid to laboriously analyze those proteins and what they interact with and other data points.
Once we have enough of that data, we can approach big ideas and other extremely beneficial models.
Right now we are in the calm before the storm. We are mid-1800s physics, just collecting the data necessary to discover and quantify models of electromagnetic energy and fields, the modeling of which is what directly lead to the information and then computer revolution. Most advancements of the 20th century were about utilizing those models to master the electromagnetic field. Similar data was how we figured out the nuclear forces.
We should be funding the mapping of the human biological system. We should be gathering the data required interact with our bodies.
No amount of "self improving superintelligent AGI" can actually overcome the whole "There's no data" problem. If we had a magical AGI in 1750, it would not have been able to produce Maxwell's equations.
I'm a true believer in AGI being able to become a force for immense good if deployed carefully by responsible parties.
Currently one of the key issues with a lot of fields is that they operate as independent / largely isolated silos. If you could build a true AGI capable of achieving top-level mastery across multiple disciplines it would likely be able to integrate all that knowledge and make a lot of significant discoveries that would improve people's lives. Just exploring existing problem spaces with the full intellectual toolkit that humanity has developed is probably enough to make significant progress.
Our understanding of biology is still painfully primitive. To give a concrete example, I dream that someday it'll be possible to develop medical interventions that allow humans to regrow missing limbs and fix almost any health issue.
Have you ever lived with depression or any other psychiatric problem? I think if we could create medical interventions and environments that are conductive towards healing psychiatric problems, that would also be a massive quality of life improvement for huge numbers of people. Do you know how our current psychiatric interventions work? You try some drug, flip a coin to see if it does anything and wait 4 weeks to get the result. Then you keep iterating and hope that eventually the doctor finds some magical combination to make life barely tolerable.
I think the best path forward for improving humanity's understanding of biology, and ultimately medical science, is to go all-in on AGI-style technology.
Trying to engage in good faith here but I don't really get this. You're pretending to have never encountered positive visions of technologically advanced futures.
Cure all disease?
Stop aging?
End material scarcity?
It's completely fair to expect that these are all twisted monkey's paw scenarios that turn out dystopian, but being unable to understand any positive motivations for the creation of AGI seems a bit far fetched.
That the development of this technology is in the hands of a few people that don't use even a fraction of their staggering wealth to address these challenges now, tells me that they aren't interested in using AI to solve them later.
I'm working toward AGI. I hope AGI can be used to automate work and make life easier for people.
>> non-$$ logic [...] aside from misanthropy
> I hope AGI can be used to automate work
You people need a PR guy, I'm serious. OpenAI is the first company I've ever seen that comes across as actively trying to be misanthropic in its messaging. I'm probably too old-fashioned, but this honestly sounds like Marlboro launching the slogan "lung cancer for the weak of mind".
Matt Levine calls it business negging
How old are you?
That's what they've been selling us for the past 50 years and nothing has changed, all the productivity gain was pocketed by the elite
Here's my prediction : The rapid progress of AI will make money as an accounting practice irrelevant. Take the concept of "Future is already here but unevenly distributed." When we will have true abundance, what the elites will target is the convex hull of progress, they want to be in control of leading edge / leading wavefront and its direction and who has access to resources and decision making. In such a scenario of abundance, populace will have access to iPhone 50 but the Elites will have access to iPhone 500. i.e. uneven distribution. Elites would like to directly control which resource gets allocated to which projects. Elon is already doing that with his immense clout. This implies we would have a sort of multidimensional resource based economy.
3 replies →
Who’s gonna pay for that inference?
It’s going to take money, what if your AGI has some tax policy ideas that are different from the inference owners?
Why would they let that AGI out into the wild?
Let’s say you create AGI. How long will it take for society to recover? How long will it take for people of a certain tax ideology to finally say oh OK, UBI maybe?
The last part is my main question. How long do you think it would take our civilization to recover from the introduction of AGI?
Edit: sama gets a lot of shit, but I have to admit at least he used to work on the UBI problem, orb and all. However, those days seem very long gone from the outside, at least.
If you are genuine in your questions, I will give them a shot.
AGI applied to the inputs (or supply chain) of what is needed for inference (power, DC space, chips, network equipment, etc) will dramatically reduced costs of inference. Most of the costs of stuff today are driven by the scarcity of "smart people's time". The raw resources of material needed are dirt cheap (cheaper than water). Transforming raw resources into useful high tech is a function of applied intelligence. Replace the human intelligence with machine intelligence, and costs will keep dropping (faster than the curve they are already on). Economic history has already shown this effect to be true; as we develop better tools to assist human productivity, the unit cost per piece of tech drops dramatically (moore's law is just one example, everything that tech touches experiences this effect).
If you look at almost any universal problem with the human condition, one important bottleneck to improving it is intelligence (or "smart people's time").
I am not someone working on AGI but I think a lot of people work backwards from the expected outcome.
Expected outcome is usually something like a Post-Scarcity society, this is a society where basic needs are all covered.
If we could all live in a future with a free house and a robot that does our chores and food is never scarce we should works towards that, they believe.
The intermiddiete steps aren't thought out, in the same way that for example the communist manifesto does little to explain the transition from capitalism to communism. It simply says there will be the need for things like forcing the bourgiese to join the common workers and there will be a transition phase but no clear steps between either system.
Similarly many AGI proponents think in terms of "wouldnt it be cool if there was an AI that did all the bits of life we dont like doing", without systemic analysis that many people do those bits because they need money to eat for example.
>sama gets a lot of shit, but I have to admit at least he used to work on the UBI problem, orb and all.
The Orb was never ever ever meant to ever fix anything about UBI or even help it happen.
It was always about creating a hyped enough cryptocoin he could use as an ATM to fund himself and other things. That's what all these assholes got into crypto for, like, demonstrably. It was always about taking investment from fools who could not punish you for screwing them over, and then taking your bag and going home to play.
The orb was a sales and marketing gimmick. There's nothing it could do that couldn't be done by commodity fingerprint scanners.
Automating work and making life easier for people are two entirely different things. Automating work tends to lead to life becoming harder for people - mostly on account of who is benefiting from the automation - basically that better life aint gonna happen under capitalism
R&D can be automated to speed up medical research - saving lives, prolonging life, etc.
Assistant robots for the elderly. In many countries population is shrinking, so fundamentally just not enough people to take care of the old.
Have you ever seen that "science advocate vs scientist" comic?
https://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2088
It's true. When it comes to the people doing bleeding edge research and development, the answer often is "BECAUSE IT'S FUCKING AWESOME". Regardless of what they tell the corporate higher-ups or put on the grant application statements.
Sure, a lot of people believe that AGI is going to make the world a better place. But "mad scientist" is a stereotype for a reason. You look into their eyes and you see the flame of madness flickering behind them.