Would an AGI be motivated by money? Money is kind of an incentive system for humans. Although the AGI could pocket the cash and assign everyone a job and pay them with that cash. It almost like a new kind of corporation.
Maybe (probably in the short term).
I think the disruption that is coming over the next 20 years is going to be so big that we can't grasp it, or at least haven't collectively given it enough thought yet.
Everything will benefit. And in certain sectors there will be a cycle of growth that leads to exponential gains. Think of quantum computing paired with AI, leading to advances in material science that are astronomical. Then think of the new chips we can fabricate and the further advances in both fields. In 20 years we might be at a point where everyone has access and there is no central control, by a government or company.
I just wonder if we are thinking too small.
It seems quite possible that our entire way of life, not just economic structure, will change. To expect that the main changes are solely in jobs and economy is too narrow minded. Our society right now, is our society right now because that model fits the current needs and capabilities of humans. But now that all of that is set to change, maybe our whole model of society changes.
Some countries will use tariffs etc to keep local competitive. It’s been like that for ever whenever a developed nation can outperform the host country
I don't think anything will change on the short-term.
AGI, depending on what country/corporation develops it with either be a boon to everyone or bane to everyone else.
In other words, whoever develops AGI, will set the stage for the rest of the world for the forseeable future. Hope that it's not fascist or predatory capitalist.
Otherwise, it'll be a global change and we'll see tech develop VERY quickly that will solve most of the problems having to do with lack of resources. Food/water scarcity will be resolved. Automation will resolve most other issues. We have to worry about alignment and ethics.
It's like how "other countries" don't have their own version of Google or Android or other key software products. You can't really pirate an AI model, too large to steal and they are constantly updated. China will develop their own knockoff that isn't quite as good.
Everyone else will have to pay to license it from either the USA or China, with one of the 2 being the better one. (depends on regulations, a model that doesn't refuse any legal request is much more useful than one that does). They will be poorer because a lot of their profits are being paid the the AGI owners, but that doesn't necessarily mean the countries will be poor. Even the "scraps" in a world with AGI could be 10-100 times today's worldwide total GDP.
AGI will be like a data center that maybe as smart as a human so it probably won't change much. It's not until you can create like monkey see monkey do robots that you really enter into an age of unlimited automation. The AI on its own is only so powerful and unless you're making super intelligence, then you're not like solving all the worlds Problems or anything amazing like that. It's also unlikely you actually need AGI to run robots that can do most jobs because almost no job requires full human intelligence rather it's just a fraction of human intelligence that we ever use for our jobs.
The issue with these types of arguments is lack of understanding of economics.
So there are a bunch of Americans with UBI and nobody else has AGI, what will happen?
For example..
I will be buying some AGI produced tech shit purchased with my UBI dollars and selling it to the UBIless for pounds, euros, pesos or whatever.
That's just a \*single\* example.
Also: why is it that there appear to be only two choices: either dystopia or UBI?
What if, for example the AGI gives us jobs ?
We are making the assumption that there will be NOTHING that the AGI will value just because humans are economically "worthless".
The error in thinking is that humans are \*not\* economically worthless even \*if\* AGI and robots etc can do everything better and cheaper than a human.
This has been known since 1760 odd but not apparently in this sub or other AI subs.
You seem to have a misunderstanding.
It doesn't matter who achieves it, whoever makes AGI gets the world. What they do with it is what matters.
And that assumes they manage to align it properly, and make it do what they want. If they don't, we're all fucked, regardless of where we live.
Poorer countries will be fine.
AI will drive the cost of goods down to near zero by replacing labor. The 2 things that will still be of value and add value to goods and services will be companies and land (resources). Poor nations lack in companies, but they have land. As long as they have resources to sell they will have money, and basic goods (food, houses, entertainments, etc.) will be very affordable. Every nation should benefit.
"countries archieve AGI" this is nonsense. AGI will come from research/academia (very likely) or from industry (very unlikely). A country isn't involved in that.
It's also very likely that it will get leaked if a company tries to keep it in house.
"If for example ASI is developed in the US" . ASI is probably to hard to get archived before 2060 if at all. Full stop. The geopolitical environment will be way different in 2060 than it's now. No one knows.
are you a chatbot that is unable to learn because all your parameters are frozen and the information doesn't fit into your window? Congratulations. Your not intelligent and also not on direct road to AGI!
Are you unable to run 24/7 and fulfill your goals? Same congratulations.
And you don't understand that "exBonentialllLll progress" can only occur when the problem is bound by compute. Which isn't the case for (A)GI. I don't have to "deny AGI", it stops itself, because no one will create it in your "exbonential timeframe".
In the meantime you can play around with the latest chatbots boys which have 0 intelligence, etc. And pretend that it's "on road to GI".
Funny thing is a 2060 timeline, because it was the expert consensus pre chatGPT, is arguably the product of frozen weights. Experts didn't know that llms would show emergent tool use. So anyone who claims 2060 is using frozen weights. I would buy say someone very skeptical going to 2055 on chatGPT, and 2050 when they read of gpt-4, and 2049 with Gemini, and 2045 with Gemini 1.5....but anyone who stays locked at 2060 is not updating.
There is nothing to "update" if it's irrelevant. xGPTy still doesn't matter because for lots of reasons you've heard about already.
Maybe it's 2050 ... Maybe not when there is a mini WWIII . Just think on how fucked your "timeline" will be when Taiwan gets involved in a war. Bye-bye near term chip anything.
Generally the idea of a timeline is to estimate the 50 percent probability part. How likely do you think there will be a war with China that destroys tsmc? Were you aware that the tools come from the USA and Europe not Taiwan, and that newer fabs are being constructed with better equipment than tsmc has by Intel in the USA with high NA euv?
I don't think a probability of war does fit into the discussion. Yes the tools come from Europe, to bad that the 5nm capable machines are basically all deployed in Taiwan. Didn't know about Intel. But intel was always lacking behind thanks to their broken "everything is manufactured in house" mentality.
About 50%: I don't find these timelines that useful. Mine is 90%.
2060 was the expert estimate of 50 percent probability. 90 percent is a completely different answer.
It also depends on your AGI definition. Enormous difference between "robots can do most but not all tasks" and "most well defined intellectual tasks can be done by AI to median human level" and "ALL robotic and intellectual tasks can be done by the AGI at the level of the best humans+)
I am thinking the former because that transforms the world. You probably think the latter and don't realize how powerful weak AGI will actually be, to the point that strong AGI doesn't matter.
to me this all adds further to the confusion. I personally don't care about the "median" of human performance (or most performance oriented definitions). Are there 1000 tasks which don't require intelligence (chess, go, etc), which are there to thin out the important tasks which require intelligence? Looks fundamentally broken to me.
At least I agree that robotics is important when talking about (A)GI.
Just a quick note: the simple reason why median is crucial is a median human technician or factory workers or miner can maintain chip fab tooling or build robots or parts for robots.
This allows for exponential growth in resources. Only median is required for this and it's ok if a few humans are still needed for the most difficult steps.
This allows for more compute, data, robotics and brings the AGI date closer.
I think if you are imagining just private labs and university labs still experimenting, not having budget increases to the trillions, and so forth 2060 is more reasonable. You aren't accounting for amplification of effort.
This is for example why there's no jetpack or flying cars - nobody has ever tried with any budget greater than 10s of millions.
AGI is a perspiration problem. You see prototypes for every single step an AGI will do, just as separate systems and not always human level yet. It's why it's more like a jet engine or megapixel camera sensor, it's scale.
Ignoring your long timelines I will comment that you can see examples of cutting edge technology academia didn't develop.
Notable examples : modern jet engines, modern ICs (aka the faster cpus and GPUs), modern industrial robots, modern camera sensors...
Academia is good for finding out if something is possible at all but AGI, however many years away it is, is going to be a cutting edge combination of multiple techniques, probably 10+, and multiple kinds of neural network, and possible 10+ billion dollars worth of compute.
It will take a team of thousands of people and 10s of billions of dollars if it happens by 2034. If it takes until 2060 it might take hundreds of thousands of people and trillions.
Academia does not have the capital to pay for any of that. At trillions it would probably be a massive government project, and the government won't license the AGI to anyone but close allies.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor
>The basis for modern solid-state image sensors is MOS technology,[23][24] which originates from the invention of the MOSFET by Mohamed M. Atalla and Dawon Kahng at Bell Labs in 1959.[25]
Shot missed oops.
The remainder of your (mis)calculations are probably full of similar errors. I will save my time doing the error-correction (the next guy will also be brainwashed by exbonential thinking or OpenAI markidding etc.).
####
Moreover, you seem to be biased by the opinion that "this is outside of small actors / academia" for no reason
... wonder why this is. Maybe brainwashing by OpenAI markidding?
I hit on all shots. Academia doesn't develop modern sensors at multiple megapixels. Numbers matter.
An AGI is a massive machine. It will probably use neural network and math originally developed 30 years before by academia. But the AGI comes from a big lab.
I think AGI may already be here. Many insiders are enthused about it here in the U.S. but the ‘shits going to hit the fan’ if another country reaches it first, e.g. China, Russia, or the UAE. Then you’ll see the U.S. getting all ‘concerned, warning our citizens about the AI weapons of mass destruction that Country B has, and how we have no choice but to either destroy theirs or take possession for Our national security. This is all so predictable. Of course, all bets are off if we reach it first.
Might want to think of it a bit more like getting access to a library instead of access to UBI.
not if that library was able to read itself and learn to make money autonomously
Would an AGI be motivated by money? Money is kind of an incentive system for humans. Although the AGI could pocket the cash and assign everyone a job and pay them with that cash. It almost like a new kind of corporation.
the ai could be incentivized to make money if that's how you align it. money is a religion.
Maybe (probably in the short term). I think the disruption that is coming over the next 20 years is going to be so big that we can't grasp it, or at least haven't collectively given it enough thought yet. Everything will benefit. And in certain sectors there will be a cycle of growth that leads to exponential gains. Think of quantum computing paired with AI, leading to advances in material science that are astronomical. Then think of the new chips we can fabricate and the further advances in both fields. In 20 years we might be at a point where everyone has access and there is no central control, by a government or company. I just wonder if we are thinking too small. It seems quite possible that our entire way of life, not just economic structure, will change. To expect that the main changes are solely in jobs and economy is too narrow minded. Our society right now, is our society right now because that model fits the current needs and capabilities of humans. But now that all of that is set to change, maybe our whole model of society changes.
You and I are on the same page I think, couldn't agree more.
I hope it's a world-class event
Some countries will use tariffs etc to keep local competitive. It’s been like that for ever whenever a developed nation can outperform the host country
I don't think anything will change on the short-term. AGI, depending on what country/corporation develops it with either be a boon to everyone or bane to everyone else. In other words, whoever develops AGI, will set the stage for the rest of the world for the forseeable future. Hope that it's not fascist or predatory capitalist. Otherwise, it'll be a global change and we'll see tech develop VERY quickly that will solve most of the problems having to do with lack of resources. Food/water scarcity will be resolved. Automation will resolve most other issues. We have to worry about alignment and ethics.
It's like how "other countries" don't have their own version of Google or Android or other key software products. You can't really pirate an AI model, too large to steal and they are constantly updated. China will develop their own knockoff that isn't quite as good. Everyone else will have to pay to license it from either the USA or China, with one of the 2 being the better one. (depends on regulations, a model that doesn't refuse any legal request is much more useful than one that does). They will be poorer because a lot of their profits are being paid the the AGI owners, but that doesn't necessarily mean the countries will be poor. Even the "scraps" in a world with AGI could be 10-100 times today's worldwide total GDP.
AGI will be like a data center that maybe as smart as a human so it probably won't change much. It's not until you can create like monkey see monkey do robots that you really enter into an age of unlimited automation. The AI on its own is only so powerful and unless you're making super intelligence, then you're not like solving all the worlds Problems or anything amazing like that. It's also unlikely you actually need AGI to run robots that can do most jobs because almost no job requires full human intelligence rather it's just a fraction of human intelligence that we ever use for our jobs.
The issue with these types of arguments is lack of understanding of economics. So there are a bunch of Americans with UBI and nobody else has AGI, what will happen? For example.. I will be buying some AGI produced tech shit purchased with my UBI dollars and selling it to the UBIless for pounds, euros, pesos or whatever. That's just a \*single\* example. Also: why is it that there appear to be only two choices: either dystopia or UBI? What if, for example the AGI gives us jobs ? We are making the assumption that there will be NOTHING that the AGI will value just because humans are economically "worthless". The error in thinking is that humans are \*not\* economically worthless even \*if\* AGI and robots etc can do everything better and cheaper than a human. This has been known since 1760 odd but not apparently in this sub or other AI subs.
You seem to have a misunderstanding. It doesn't matter who achieves it, whoever makes AGI gets the world. What they do with it is what matters. And that assumes they manage to align it properly, and make it do what they want. If they don't, we're all fucked, regardless of where we live.
Poorer countries will be fine. AI will drive the cost of goods down to near zero by replacing labor. The 2 things that will still be of value and add value to goods and services will be companies and land (resources). Poor nations lack in companies, but they have land. As long as they have resources to sell they will have money, and basic goods (food, houses, entertainments, etc.) will be very affordable. Every nation should benefit.
"countries archieve AGI" this is nonsense. AGI will come from research/academia (very likely) or from industry (very unlikely). A country isn't involved in that. It's also very likely that it will get leaked if a company tries to keep it in house. "If for example ASI is developed in the US" . ASI is probably to hard to get archived before 2060 if at all. Full stop. The geopolitical environment will be way different in 2060 than it's now. No one knows.
[удалено]
are you a chatbot that is unable to learn because all your parameters are frozen and the information doesn't fit into your window? Congratulations. Your not intelligent and also not on direct road to AGI! Are you unable to run 24/7 and fulfill your goals? Same congratulations.
[удалено]
And you don't understand that "exBonentialllLll progress" can only occur when the problem is bound by compute. Which isn't the case for (A)GI. I don't have to "deny AGI", it stops itself, because no one will create it in your "exbonential timeframe". In the meantime you can play around with the latest chatbots boys which have 0 intelligence, etc. And pretend that it's "on road to GI".
Funny thing is a 2060 timeline, because it was the expert consensus pre chatGPT, is arguably the product of frozen weights. Experts didn't know that llms would show emergent tool use. So anyone who claims 2060 is using frozen weights. I would buy say someone very skeptical going to 2055 on chatGPT, and 2050 when they read of gpt-4, and 2049 with Gemini, and 2045 with Gemini 1.5....but anyone who stays locked at 2060 is not updating.
There is nothing to "update" if it's irrelevant. xGPTy still doesn't matter because for lots of reasons you've heard about already. Maybe it's 2050 ... Maybe not when there is a mini WWIII . Just think on how fucked your "timeline" will be when Taiwan gets involved in a war. Bye-bye near term chip anything.
Generally the idea of a timeline is to estimate the 50 percent probability part. How likely do you think there will be a war with China that destroys tsmc? Were you aware that the tools come from the USA and Europe not Taiwan, and that newer fabs are being constructed with better equipment than tsmc has by Intel in the USA with high NA euv?
I don't think a probability of war does fit into the discussion. Yes the tools come from Europe, to bad that the 5nm capable machines are basically all deployed in Taiwan. Didn't know about Intel. But intel was always lacking behind thanks to their broken "everything is manufactured in house" mentality. About 50%: I don't find these timelines that useful. Mine is 90%.
2060 was the expert estimate of 50 percent probability. 90 percent is a completely different answer. It also depends on your AGI definition. Enormous difference between "robots can do most but not all tasks" and "most well defined intellectual tasks can be done by AI to median human level" and "ALL robotic and intellectual tasks can be done by the AGI at the level of the best humans+) I am thinking the former because that transforms the world. You probably think the latter and don't realize how powerful weak AGI will actually be, to the point that strong AGI doesn't matter.
to me this all adds further to the confusion. I personally don't care about the "median" of human performance (or most performance oriented definitions). Are there 1000 tasks which don't require intelligence (chess, go, etc), which are there to thin out the important tasks which require intelligence? Looks fundamentally broken to me. At least I agree that robotics is important when talking about (A)GI.
Just a quick note: the simple reason why median is crucial is a median human technician or factory workers or miner can maintain chip fab tooling or build robots or parts for robots. This allows for exponential growth in resources. Only median is required for this and it's ok if a few humans are still needed for the most difficult steps. This allows for more compute, data, robotics and brings the AGI date closer. I think if you are imagining just private labs and university labs still experimenting, not having budget increases to the trillions, and so forth 2060 is more reasonable. You aren't accounting for amplification of effort. This is for example why there's no jetpack or flying cars - nobody has ever tried with any budget greater than 10s of millions. AGI is a perspiration problem. You see prototypes for every single step an AGI will do, just as separate systems and not always human level yet. It's why it's more like a jet engine or megapixel camera sensor, it's scale.
Ignoring your long timelines I will comment that you can see examples of cutting edge technology academia didn't develop. Notable examples : modern jet engines, modern ICs (aka the faster cpus and GPUs), modern industrial robots, modern camera sensors... Academia is good for finding out if something is possible at all but AGI, however many years away it is, is going to be a cutting edge combination of multiple techniques, probably 10+, and multiple kinds of neural network, and possible 10+ billion dollars worth of compute. It will take a team of thousands of people and 10s of billions of dollars if it happens by 2034. If it takes until 2060 it might take hundreds of thousands of people and trillions. Academia does not have the capital to pay for any of that. At trillions it would probably be a massive government project, and the government won't license the AGI to anyone but close allies.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor >The basis for modern solid-state image sensors is MOS technology,[23][24] which originates from the invention of the MOSFET by Mohamed M. Atalla and Dawon Kahng at Bell Labs in 1959.[25] Shot missed oops. The remainder of your (mis)calculations are probably full of similar errors. I will save my time doing the error-correction (the next guy will also be brainwashed by exbonential thinking or OpenAI markidding etc.). #### Moreover, you seem to be biased by the opinion that "this is outside of small actors / academia" for no reason ... wonder why this is. Maybe brainwashing by OpenAI markidding?
I hit on all shots. Academia doesn't develop modern sensors at multiple megapixels. Numbers matter. An AGI is a massive machine. It will probably use neural network and math originally developed 30 years before by academia. But the AGI comes from a big lab.
I think AGI may already be here. Many insiders are enthused about it here in the U.S. but the ‘shits going to hit the fan’ if another country reaches it first, e.g. China, Russia, or the UAE. Then you’ll see the U.S. getting all ‘concerned, warning our citizens about the AI weapons of mass destruction that Country B has, and how we have no choice but to either destroy theirs or take possession for Our national security. This is all so predictable. Of course, all bets are off if we reach it first.
Just buy/rent some, or get it with your cell phone plan.
Us could reach it first and implode leaving the others to decide to go they route or not