[HN Gopher] AI 2027
___________________________________________________________________
AI 2027
Author : Tenoke
Score : 232 points
Date : 2025-04-03 16:13 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (ai-2027.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (ai-2027.com)
| ikerino wrote:
| Feels reasonable in the first few paragraphs, then quickly starts
| reading like science fiction.
|
| Would love to read a perspective examining "what is the slowest
| reasonable pace of development we could expect." This feels to me
| like the fastest (unreasonable) trajectory we could expect.
| admiralrohan wrote:
| No one knows what will happen. But these thought experiments
| can be useful as a critical thinking practice.
| layer8 wrote:
| The slowest is a sudden and permanent plateau, where all
| attempts at progress turn out to result in serious downsides
| that make them unworkable.
| ahofmann wrote:
| Ok, I'll bite. I predict that everything in this article is horse
| manure. AGI will not happen. LLMs will be tools, that can
| automate away stuff, like today and they will get slightly, or
| quite a bit better at it. That will be all. See you in two years,
| I'm excited what will be the truth.
| Tenoke wrote:
| That seems naive in a status quo bias way to me. Why and where
| do you expect AI progress to stop? It sounds like somewhere
| very close to where we are at in your eyes. Why do you think
| there won't be many further improvements?
| ahofmann wrote:
| I write bog-standard PHP software. When GPT-4 came out, I was
| very frightened that my job could be automated away soon,
| because for PHP/Laravel/MySQL there must exist a lot of
| training data.
|
| The reality now is, that the current LLMs still often create
| stuff, that costs me more time to fix, than to do it myself.
| So I still write a lot of code myself. It is very impressive,
| that I can think about stopping writing code myself. But my
| job as a software developer is, very, very secure.
|
| LLMs are very unable to build maintainable software. They are
| unable to understand what humans want and what the codebase
| need. The stuff they build is good-looking garbage. One
| example I've seen yesterday: one dev committed code, where
| the LLM created 50 lines of React code, complete with all
| those useless comments and for good measure a setTimeout()
| for something that should be one HTML DIV with two tailwind
| classes. They can't write idiomatic code, because they write
| code, that they were prompted for.
|
| Almost daily I get code, commit messages, and even issue
| discussions that are clearly AI-generated. And it costs me
| time to deal with good-looking but useless content.
|
| To be honest, I hope that LLMs get better soon. Because right
| now, we are in an annoying phase, where software developers
| bog me down with AI-generated stuff. It just looks good but
| doesn't help writing usable software, that can be deployed in
| production.
|
| To get to this point, LLMs need to get maybe a hundred times
| faster, maybe a thousand or ten thousand times. They need a
| much bigger context window. Then they can have an inner
| dialogue, where they really "understand" how some feature
| should be built in a given codebase. That would be very
| useful. But it will also use so much energy that I doubt that
| it will be cheaper to let a LLM do those "thinking" parts
| over, and over again instead of paying a human to build the
| software. Perhaps this will be feasible in five or eight
| years. But not two.
|
| And this won't be AGI. This will still be a very, very fast
| stochastic parrot.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| ahofmann didn't expect AI progress to _stop_. They expected
| it to continue, but not lead to AGI, that will not lead to
| superintelligence, that will not lead to a self-accelerating
| process of improvement.
|
| So the question is, do you think the current road leads to
| AGI? _How far_ down the road is it? As far as I can see,
| there is not a "status quo bias" answer to those questions.
| PollardsRho wrote:
| It seems to me that much of recent AI progress has not
| changed the fundamental scaling principles underlying the
| tech. Reasoning models are more effective, but at the cost of
| more computation: it's more for more, not more for less. The
| logarithmic relationship between model resources and model
| quality (as Altman himself has characterized it), phrased a
| different way, means that you need exponentially more energy
| and resources for each marginal increase in capabilities.
| GPT-4.5 is unimpressive in comparison to GPT-4, and at least
| from the outside it seems like it cost an awful lot of money.
| Maybe GPT-5 is slightly less unimpressive and significantly
| more expensive: is that the through-line that will lead to
| the singularity?
|
| Compare the automobile. Automobiles today are a lot nicer
| than they were 50 years ago, and a lot more efficient. Does
| that mean cars that never need fuel or recharging are coming
| soon, just because the trend has been higher efficiency? No,
| because the fundamental physical realities of drag still
| limit efficiency. Moreover, it turns out that making 100%
| efficient engines with 100% efficient regenerative brakes is
| really hard, and "just throw more research at it" isn't a
| silver bullet. That's not "there won't be many future
| improvements", but it is "those future improvements probably
| won't be any bigger than the jump from GPT-3 to o1, which
| does not extrapolate to what OP claims their models will do
| in 2027."
|
| AI in 2027 might be the metaphorical brand-new Lexus to
| today's beat-up Kia. That doesn't mean it will drive ten
| times faster, or take ten times less fuel. Even if high-end
| cars can be significantly more efficient than what average
| people drive, that doesn't mean the extra expense is actually
| worth it.
| jstummbillig wrote:
| When is the earliest that you would have predicted where we are
| today?
| rdlw wrote:
| Same as everybody else. Today.
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| What's an example of an intellectual task that you don't think
| AI will be capable of by 2027?
| coolThingsFirst wrote:
| programming
| lumenwrites wrote:
| Why would it get 60-80% as good as human programmers (which
| is what the current state of things feels like to me, as a
| programmer, using these tools for hours every day), but
| stop there?
| boringg wrote:
| Because ewe still haven't figured out fusion but its been
| promised for decades. Why would everything thats been
| promised by people with highly vested interests pan out
| any different?
|
| One is inherently a more challenging physics problem.
| kody wrote:
| It's 60-80% as good as Stack Overflow copy-pasting
| programmers, sure, but those programmers were already
| providing questionable value.
|
| It's nowhere near as good as someone actually building
| and maintaining systems. It's barely able to vomit out an
| MVP and it's almost never capable of making a meaningful
| change to that MVP.
|
| If your experiences have been different that's fine, but
| in my day job I am spending more and more time just
| fixing crappy LLM code produced and merged by STAFF
| engineers. I really don't see that changing any time
| soon.
| lumenwrites wrote:
| I'm pretty good at what I do, at least according to
| myself and the people I work with, and I'm comparing its
| capabilities (the latest version of Claude used as an
| agent inside Cursor) to myself. It can't fully do things
| on its own and makes mistakes, but it can do a lot.
|
| But suppose you're right, it's 60% as good as
| "stackoverflow copy-pasting programmers". Isn't that a
| pretty insanely impressive milestone to just dismiss?
|
| And why would it just get to this point, and then stop?
| Like, we can all see AIs continuously beating the
| benchmarks, and the progress feels very fast in terms of
| experience of using it as a user.
|
| I'd need to hear a pretty compelling argument to believe
| that it'll suddenly stop, something more compelling than
| "well, it's not very good yet, therefore it won't be any
| better", or "Sam Altman is lying to us because
| incentives".
|
| Sure, it can slow down somewhat because of the
| exponentially increasing compute costs, but that's
| assuming no more algorithmic progress, no more compute
| progress, and no more increases in the capital that flows
| into this field (I find that hard to believe).
| kody wrote:
| I appreciate your reply. My tone was a little dismissive;
| I'm currently deep deep in the trenches trying to unwind
| a tremendous amount of LLM slop in my team's codebase so
| I'm a little sensitive.
|
| I use Claude every day. It is definitely impressive, but
| in my experience only marginally more impressive than
| ChatGPT was a few years ago. It hallucinates less and
| compiles more reliably, but still produces really poor
| designs. It really is an overconfident junior developer.
|
| The real risk, and what I am seeing daily, is colleagues
| falling for the "if you aren't using Cursor you're going
| to be left behind" FUD. So they learn Cursor, discover
| that it's an easy way to close tickets without using your
| brain, and end up polluting the codebase with very
| questionable designs.
| lumenwrites wrote:
| Oh, sorry to hear that you have to deal with that!
|
| The way I'm getting a sense of the progress is using AI
| for what AI is currently good at, using my human brain to
| do the part AI is currently bad at, and comparing it to
| doing the same work without AI's help.
|
| I feel like AI is pretty close to automating 60-80% of
| the work I would've had to do manually two years ago (as
| a full-stack web developer).
|
| It doesn't mean that the remaining 20-40% will be
| automated very quickly, I'm just saying that I don't see
| the progress getting any slower.
| burningion wrote:
| So I think there's an assumption you've made here, that
| the models are currently "60-80% as good as human
| programmers".
|
| If you look at code being generated by non-programmers
| (where you would expect to see these results!), you don't
| see output that is 60-80% of the output of domain experts
| (programmers) steering the models.
|
| I think we're extremely imprecise when we communicate in
| natural language, and this is part of the discrepancy
| between belief systems.
|
| Will an LLM model read a person's mind about what they
| want to build better than they can communicate?
|
| That's already what recommender systems (like the TikTok
| algorithm) do.
|
| But will LLMs be able to orchestrate and fill in the
| blanks of imprecision in our requests on their own, or
| will they need human steering?
|
| I think that's where there's a gap in (basically) belief
| systems of the future.
|
| If we truly get post human-level intelligence everywhere,
| there is no amount of "preparing" or "working with" the
| LLMs ahead of time that will save you from being rendered
| economically useless.
|
| This is mostly a question about how long the moat of
| human judgement lasts. I think there's an opportunity to
| work together to make things better than before, using
| these LLMs as tools that work _with_ us.
| coolThingsFirst wrote:
| Try this, launch Cursor.
|
| Type: print all prime numbers which are divisible by 3 up
| to 1M
|
| The result is that it will do a sieve. There's no need
| for this, it's just 3.
| mysfi wrote:
| Just tried this with Gemini 2.5 Pro. Got it right with
| meaningful thought process.
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| Can you phrase this in a concrete way, so that in 2027 we
| can all agree whether it's true or false, rather than
| circling a "no true scotsman" argument?
| abecedarius wrote:
| Good question. I tried to phrase a concrete-enough
| prediction 3.5 years ago, for 5 years out at the time:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29020401
|
| It was surpassed around the beginning of this year, so
| you'll need to come up with a new one for 2027. Note that
| the other opinions in that older HN thread almost all
| expected less.
| kubb wrote:
| It won't be able to write a compelling novel, or build a
| software system solving a real-world problem, or operate
| heavy machinery, create a sprite sheet or 3d models, design a
| building or teach.
|
| Long term planning and execution and operating in the
| physical world is not within reach. Slight variations of
| known problems should be possible (as long as the size of the
| solution is small enough).
| lumenwrites wrote:
| I'm pretty sure you're wrong for at least 2 of those:
|
| For 3D models, check out blender-mcp:
|
| https://old.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1joaowb/claud
| e...
|
| https://old.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1jbsn86/claude_cre
| a...
|
| Also this:
|
| https://old.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/1hejglg/t
| r...
|
| For teaching, I'm using it to learn about tech I'm
| unfamiliar with every day, it's one of the things it's the
| most amazing at.
|
| For the things where the tolerance for mistakes is
| extremely low and the things where human oversight is
| extremely importamt, you might be right. It won't have to
| be perfect (just better than an average human) for that to
| happen, but I'm not sure if it will.
| kubb wrote:
| Just think about the delta of what the LLM does and what
| a human does, or why can't the LLM replace the human,
| e.g. in a game studio.
|
| If it can replace a teacher or an artist in 2027, you're
| right and I'm wrong.
| esafak wrote:
| It's already replacing artists; that's why they're up in
| arms. People don't need stock photographers or graphic
| designers as much as they used to.
|
| https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=46029
| 44
| programd wrote:
| Does a fighter jet count as "heavy machinery"?
|
| https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-
| fighter-j...
| pixl97 wrote:
| > or operate heavy machinery
|
| What exactly do you mean by this one?
|
| In large mining operations we already have human assisted
| teleoperation AI equipment. Was watching one recently where
| the human got 5 or so push dozers lined up with a
| (admittedly simple) task of cutting a hill down and then
| just got them back in line if they ran into anything
| outside of their training. The push and backup operations
| along with blade control were done by the AI/dozer itself.
|
| Now, this isn't long term planning, but it is operating in
| the real world.
| jdauriemma wrote:
| Being accountable for telling the truth
| myhf wrote:
| accountability sinks are all you need
| bayarearefugee wrote:
| I predict AGI will be solved 5 years after full self driving
| which itself is 1 year out (same as it has been for the past 10
| years).
| ahofmann wrote:
| Well said!
| kristopolous wrote:
| People want to live their lives free of finance and centralized
| personal information.
|
| If you think most people like this stuff you're living in a
| bubble. I use it every day but the vast majority of people have
| no interest in using these nightmares of philip k dick imagined
| by silicon dreamers.
| WhatsName wrote:
| This is absurd, like taking any trend and drawing a straight line
| to interpolate the future. If I would do this with my tech stock
| portfolio, we would probably cross the zero line somewhere late
| 2025...
|
| If this article were a AI model, it would be catastrophically
| overfit.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| It's worse. It's not drawing a straight line, it's drawing one
| that curves up, _on a log graph_.
| Lionga wrote:
| AI now even got it's own fan fiction porn. It is so stupid not
| sure whether it is worse if it is written by AI or by a human.
| the_cat_kittles wrote:
| "we demand to be taken seriously!"
| beklein wrote:
| Older and related article from one of the authors titled "What
| 2026 looks like", that is holding up very well against time.
| Written in mid 2021 (pre ChatGPT)
|
| https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/6Xgy6CAf2jqHhynHL/what-...
|
| //edit: remove the referral tags from URL
| dkdcwashere wrote:
| > The alignment community now starts another research agenda,
| to interrogate AIs about AI-safety-related topics. For example,
| they literally ask the models "so, are you aligned? If we made
| bigger versions of you, would they kill us? Why or why not?"
| (In Diplomacy, you can actually collect data on the analogue of
| this question, i.e. "will you betray me?" Alas, the models
| often lie about that. But it's Diplomacy, they are literally
| trained to lie, so no one cares.)
|
| ...yeah?
| motoxpro wrote:
| That's incredible how much it broadly aligns with what has
| happened. Especially because it was before ChatGPT.
| reducesuffering wrote:
| Will people finally wake up that the AGI X-Risk people have
| been right and we're rapidly approaching a really fucking big
| deal?
|
| This forum has been so behind for too long.
|
| Sama has been saying this a decade now: "Development of
| Superhuman machine intelligence is probably the greatest
| threat to the continued existence of humanity" 2015
| https://blog.samaltman.com/machine-intelligence-part-1
|
| Hinton, Ilya, Dario Amodei, RLHF inventor, Deepmind founders.
| They all get it, which is why they're the smart cookies in
| those positions.
|
| First stage is denial, I get it, not easy to swallow the
| gravity of what's coming.
| ffsm8 wrote:
| People have been predicting the singularity to occur
| sometimes around 2030 and 2045 waaaay further back then
| 2015. And not just by enthusiasts, I dimly remember an
| interview with Richard Darkins from back in the day...
|
| Though that doesn't mean that the current version of
| language models will ever achieve AGI, and I sincerely
| doubt they will. They'll likely be a component in the AI,
| but likely not the thing that "drives"
| neural_thing wrote:
| Vernor Vinge as much as anyone can be credited with the
| concept of the singularity. In his 1993 essay on it, he
| said he'd be surprised if it happened before 2005 or
| after 2030
|
| https://edoras.sdsu.edu/~vinge/misc/singularity.html
| archagon wrote:
| And why are Altman's words worth anything? Is he some sort
| of great thinker? Or a leading AI researcher, perhaps?
|
| No. Altman is in his current position because he's highly
| effective at consolidating power and has friends in high
| places. That's it. Everything he says can be seen as
| marketing for the next power grab.
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| well, he did also have a an early (failed) YC startup -
| does that add cred?
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| > Will people finally wake up that the AGI X-Risk people
| have been right and we're rapidly approaching a really
| fucking big deal?
|
| OK, say I totally believe this. What, pray tell, are we
| supposed to do about it?
|
| Don't you at least see the irony of quoting Sama's dire
| warnings about the development of AI, without at least
| mentioning that he is at the absolute forefront of the push
| to build this technology that can destroy all of humanity.
| It's like he's saying "This potion can destroy all of
| humanity if we make it" as he works faster and faster to
| figure out how to make it.
|
| I mean, I get it, "if we don't build it, someone else
| will", but all of the discussion around "alignment" seems
| just blatantly laughable to me. If on one hand your goal is
| to build "super intelligence", i.e. way smarter than any
| human or group of humans, how do you expect to control that
| super intelligence when you're just acting at the middling
| level of human intelligence?
|
| While I'm skeptical on the timeline, if we do ever end up
| building super intelligence, the idea that we can control
| it is a pipe dream. We may not be toast (I mean, we're
| smarter than dogs, and we keep them around), but we won't
| be in control.
|
| So if you truly believe super intelligent AI is coming, you
| may as well enjoy the view now, because there ain't nothing
| you or anyone else will be able to do to "save humanity" if
| or when it arrives.
| achierius wrote:
| Political organization to force a stop to ongoing
| research? Protest outside OAI HQ? There are lots of thing
| we could, and many of us _would_ , do if more people were
| actually convinced their life were in danger.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| > Political organization to force a stop to ongoing
| research? Protest outside OAI HQ?
|
| Come on, be real. Do you honestly think that would make a
| lick of difference? _Maybe_ , at best, delay things by a
| couple months. But this is a worldwide phenomenon, and
| humans have shown time and time again that they are not
| able to self organize globally. How successful do you
| think that political organization is going to be in
| slowing China's progress?
| pixl97 wrote:
| >This forum has been so behind for too long.
|
| There is a strong financial incentive for a lot of people
| on this site to deny they are at risk from it, or to deny
| what they are building has risk and they should have
| culpability from that.
| samr71 wrote:
| It's not something you need to worry about.
|
| If we get the Singularity, it's overwhelmingly likely Jesus
| will return concurrently.
| goatlover wrote:
| > "Development of Superhuman machine intelligence is
| probably the greatest threat to the continued existence of
| humanity"
|
| If that's really true, why is there such a big push to
| rapidly improve AI? I'm guessing OpenAI, Google, Anthropic,
| Apple, Meta, Boston Dynamics don't really believe this.
| They believe AI will make them billions. What is OpenAI's
| definition of AGI? A model that makes $100 billion?
| AgentME wrote:
| Because they also believe the development of superhuman
| machine intelligence will probably be the greatest
| invention for humanity. The possible upsides and
| downsides are both staggeringly huge and uncertain.
| smusamashah wrote:
| How does it talk about GPT-1 or 3 if it was before ChatGPT?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| GPT-3 (and, naturally, all prior versions even farther back)
| was released ~2 years before ChatGPT (whose launch model was
| GPT-3.5)
|
| The publication date on this article is about halfway between
| GPT-3 and ChatGPT releases.
| Tenoke wrote:
| GPT-2 for example came out in 2019. _Chat_ GPT wasn't the
| start of GPT.
| botro wrote:
| This is damn near prescient, I'm having a hard time believing
| it was written in 2021.
|
| He did get this part wrong though, we ended up calling them
| 'Mixture of Experts' instead of 'AI bureaucracies'.
| stavros wrote:
| I think the bureaucracies part is referring more to Deep
| Research than to MoE.
| robotresearcher wrote:
| We were calling them 'Mixture of Experts' ~30 years before
| that.
|
| https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6215056
| dingnuts wrote:
| nevermind, I hate this website :D
| comp_throw7 wrote:
| Surely you're familiar with
| https://ai.meta.com/research/cicero/diplomacy/ (2022)?
|
| > I wonder who pays the bills of the authors. And your bills,
| for that matter.
|
| Also, what a weirdly conspiratorial question. There's a
| prominent "Who are we?" button near the top of the page and
| it's not a secret what any of the authors did or do for a
| living.
| dingnuts wrote:
| hmmm I apparently confused it with an RTS, oops.
|
| also it's not conspiratorial to wonder if someone in
| silicon valley today receives funding through the AI
| industry lol like half the industry is currently propped up
| by that hype, probably half the commenters here are paid
| via AI VC investments
| samth wrote:
| I think it's not holding up that well outside of predictions
| about AI research itself. In particular, he makes a lot of
| predictions about AI impact on persuasion, propaganda, the
| information environment, etc that have not happened.
| madethisnow wrote:
| something you can't know
| elicksaur wrote:
| This doesn't seem like a great way to reason about the
| predictions.
|
| For something like this, saying "There is no evidence
| showing it" is a good enough refutation.
|
| Counterpointing that "Well, there could be a lot of this
| going on, but it is in secret." - that could be a
| justification for any kooky theory out there. Bigfoot,
| UFOs, ghosts. Maybe AI has already replaced all of us and
| we're Cylons. Something we couldn't know.
|
| The predictions are specific enough that they are
| falsifiable, so they should stand or fall based on the
| clear material evidence supporting or contradicting them.
| LordDragonfang wrote:
| Could you give some specific examples of things you feel
| definitely did not come to pass? Because I see a lot of
| people here talking about how the article missed the mark on
| propaganda; meanwhile I can tab over to twitter and see a
| substantial portion of the comment section of every high-
| engagement tweet being accused of being Russia-run LLM
| propaganda bots.
| LordDragonfang wrote:
| > (2025) Making models bigger is not what's cool anymore. They
| are trillions of parameters big already. What's cool is making
| them run longer, in bureaucracies of various designs, before
| giving their answers.
|
| Holy shit. That's a hell of a called shot from 2021.
| cavisne wrote:
| This article was prescient enough that I had to check in
| wayback machine. Very cool.
| torginus wrote:
| I'm not seeing the prescience here - I don't wanna go through
| the specific points but the main gist here seems to be that
| chatbots will become very good at pretending to be human and
| influencing people to their own ends.
|
| I don't think much has happened on these fronts (owning to a
| lack of interest, not technical difficulty). AI
| boyfriends/roleplaying etc. seems to have stayed a very niche
| interest, with models improving very little over GPT3.5, and
| the actual products are seemingly absent.
|
| It's very much the product of the culture war era, where one of
| the scary scenarios show off, is a chatbot riling up a set of
| internet commenters and goarding them lashing out against
| modern leftist orthodoxy, and then cancelling them.
|
| With all thestrongholds of leftist orthodoxy falling into
| Trump's hands overnight, this view of the internet seems
| outdated.
|
| Troll chatbots still are a minor weapon in information warfare/
| The 'opinion bubbles' and manipulation of trending topics on
| social media (with the most influential content still written
| by humans), to change the perception of what's the popular
| concensus still seem to hold up as primary tools of influence.
|
| Nowadays, when most people are concerned about stuff like 'will
| the US go into a shooting war against NATO' or 'will they
| manage to crash the global economy', just to name a few of the
| dozen immediately pressing global issues, I think people are
| worried about different stuff nowadays.
|
| At the same time, there's very little mention of 'AI will take
| our jobs and make us poor' in both the intellectual and
| physical realms, something that's driving most people's anxiety
| around AI nowadays.
|
| It also puts the 'superintelligent unaligned AI will kill us
| all' argument very often presented by alignment people as a
| primary threat rather than the more plausible 'people
| controlling AI are the real danger'.
| amarcheschi wrote:
| I just spent some time trying to make claude and gemini make a
| violin plot of some polar dataframe. I've never used it and it's
| just for prototyping so i just went "apply a log to the values
| and make a violin plot of this polars dataframe". ANd had to
| iterate with them for 4/5 times each. Gemini got it right but
| then used deprecated methods
|
| I might be doing llm wrong, but i just can't get how people might
| actually do something not trivial just by vibe coding. And it's
| not like i'm an old fart either, i'm a university student
| VOIPThrowaway wrote:
| You're asking it to think and it can't.
|
| It's spicy auto complete. Ask it to create a program that can
| create a violin plot from a CVS file. Because this has been
| "done before", it will do a decent job.
| suddenlybananas wrote:
| But this blog post said that it's going to be God in like 5
| years?!
| pydry wrote:
| all tech hype cycles are a bit like this. when you were born
| people were predicting the end of offline shops.
|
| The trough of disillusionment will set in for everybody else in
| due time.
| dinfinity wrote:
| Yes, you're most likely doing it wrong. I would like to add
| that "vibe coding" is a dreadful term thought up by someone who
| is arguably not very good at software engineering, as talented
| as he may be in other respects. The term has become a
| misleading and frankly pejorative term. A better, more neutral
| one is AI assisted software engineering.
|
| This is an article that describes a pretty good approach for
| that: https://getstream.io/blog/cursor-ai-large-projects/
|
| But do skip (or at least significantly postpone) enabling the
| 'yolo mode' (sigh).
| amarcheschi wrote:
| You see, the issue I get petty about is that Ai is advertised
| as the one ring to rule them all software. VCs creaming
| themselves at the thought of not having to pay developers and
| using natural language. But then, you have to still adapt to
| the Ai, and not vice versa. "you're doing it wrong". This is
| not the idea that VCs bros are selling
|
| Then, I absolutely love being aided by llms for my day to day
| tasks. I'm much more efficient when studying and they can be
| a game changer when you're stuck and you don't know how to
| proceed. You can discuss different implementation ideas as if
| you had a colleague, perhaps not a PhD smart one but still
| someone with a quite deep knowledge of everything
|
| But, it's no miracle. That's the issue I have with the way
| the idea of Ai is sold to the c suites and the general public
| pixl97 wrote:
| >But, it's no miracle.
|
| All I can say to this is fucking good!
|
| Lets imagine we got AGI at the start of 2022. I'm talking
| about human level+ as good as you coding and reasoning AI
| that works well on the hardware from that age.
|
| What would the world look like today? Would you still have
| your job. With the world be in total disarray? Would
| unethical companies quickly fire most their staff and
| replace them with machines? Would their be mass riots in
| the streets by starving neo-luddites? Would automated
| drones be shooting at them?
|
| Simply put people and our social systems are not ready for
| competent machine intelligence and how fast it will change
| the world. We should feel lucky we are getting a ramp up
| period, and hopefully one that draws out a while longer.
| hiq wrote:
| > had to iterate with them for 4/5 times each. Gemini got it
| right but then used deprecated methods
|
| How hard would it be to automate these iterations?
|
| How hard would it be to automatically check and improve the
| code to avoid deprecated methods?
|
| I agree that most products are still underwhelming, but that
| doesn't mean that the underlying tech is not already enough to
| deliver better LLM-based products. Lately I've been using LLMs
| more and more to get started with writing tests on components
| I'm not familiar with, it really helps.
| henryjcee wrote:
| > How hard would it be to automate these iterations?
|
| The fact that we're no closer to doing this than we were when
| chatgpt launched suggests that it's really hard. If anything
| I think it's _the_ hard bit vs. building something that
| generates plausible text.
|
| Solving this for the general case is imo a completely
| different problem to being able to generate plausible text in
| the general case.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| This is not true. The chain of logic models are able to
| check their work and try again given enough compute.
| lelandbatey wrote:
| They can check their work and try again an infinite
| number of times, but the rate at which they _succeed_
| seems to just get worse and worse the further from the
| beaten path (of existing code from existing solutions)
| that they stray.
| jaccola wrote:
| How hard can it be to create a universal "correctness"
| checker? Pretty damn hard!
|
| Our notion of "correct" for most things is basically derived
| from a very long training run on reality with the loss
| function being for how long a gene propagated.
| juped wrote:
| You pretty much just have to play around with them enough to be
| able to intuit what things they can do and what things they
| can't. I'd rather have another underling, and not just because
| they grow into peers eventually, but LLMs are useful with a bit
| of practice.
| moab wrote:
| > "OpenBrain (the leading US AI project) builds AI agents that
| are good enough to dramatically accelerate their research. The
| humans, who up until very recently had been the best AI
| researchers on the planet, sit back and watch the AIs do their
| jobs, making better and better AI systems."
|
| I'm not sure what gives the authors the confidence to predict
| such statements. Wishful thinking? Worst-case paranoia? I agree
| that such an outcome is possible, but on 2--3 year timelines?
| This would imply that the approach everyone is taking right now
| is the _right_ approach and that there are no hidden conceptual
| roadblocks to achieving AGI /superintelligence from DFS-ing down
| this path.
|
| All of the predictions seem to ignore the possibility of such
| barriers, or at most acknowledge the possibility but wave it away
| by appealing to the army of AI researchers and industry funding
| being allocated to this problem. IMO it is the onus of the
| proposers of such timelines to argue why there are no such
| barriers and that we will see predictable scaling in the 2--3
| year horizon.
| throwawaylolllm wrote:
| It's my belief (and I'm far from the only person who thinks
| this) that many AI optimists are motivated by an essentially
| religious belief that you could call Singularitarianism. So
| "wishful thinking" would be one answer. This document would
| then be the rough equivalent of a Christian fundamentalist
| outlining, on the basis of tangentially related news stories,
| how the Second Coming will come to pass in the next few years.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Eh, not sure if the second coming is a great analogy. That
| wholly depends on the whims of a fictional entity performing
| some unlikely actions.
|
| Instead think of them saying a crusade occurring in the next
| few years. When the group saying the crusade is coming is
| spending billions of dollars to trying to make just that
| occur you no longer have the ability to say it's not going to
| happen. You are now forced to examine the risks of their
| actions.
| barbarr wrote:
| It also ignores the possibility of plateau... maybe there's a
| maximum amount of intelligence that matter can support, and it
| doesn't scale up with copies or speed.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Or scales sub-linearly with hardware. When you're in the
| rising portion of an S-curve[1] you can't tell how much
| longer it will go on before plateauing.
|
| A lot of this resembles post-war futurism that assumed we
| would all be flying around in spaceships and personal flying
| cars within a decade. Unfortunately the rapid pace of
| transportation innovation slowed due to physical and cost
| constraints and we've made little progress (beyond cost
| optimization) since.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmoid_function
| pixl97 wrote:
| Eh, these mathematics still don't work out in humans favor...
|
| Lets say intelligence caps out at the maximum smartest person
| that's ever lived. Well, the first thing we'd attempt to do
| is build machines up to that limit that 99.99999 percent of
| us would never get close to. Moreso the thinking parts of
| humans is only around 2 pounds of mush in side of our heads.
| On top of that you don't have to grow them for 18 years first
| before they start outputting something useful. That and they
| won't need sleep. Oh and you can feed them with solar panels.
| And they won't be getting distracted by that super sleek
| server rack across the aisle.
|
| We do know 'hive' or societal intelligence does scale over
| time especially with integration with tooling. The amount of
| knowledge we have and the means of which we can apply it
| simply dwarf previous generations.
| zvitiate wrote:
| There's a lot to potentially unpack here, but idk, the idea that
| humanity entering hell (extermination) or heaven (brain
| uploading; aging cure) is whether or not we listen to AI safety
| researchers for a few months makes me question whether it's
| really worth unpacking.
| amelius wrote:
| If _we_ don 't do it, someone else will.
| itishappy wrote:
| Which? Exterminate humanity or cure aging?
| ethersteeds wrote:
| Yes
| amelius wrote:
| The thing whose outcome can go either way.
| itishappy wrote:
| I honestly can't tell what you're trying to say here. I'd
| argue there's some pretty significant barriers to each.
| layer8 wrote:
| I'm okay if someone else unpacks it.
| achierius wrote:
| That's obviously not true. Before OpenAI blew the field open,
| multiple labs -- e.g. Google -- were _intentionally holding
| back_ their research from the public eye because they thought
| the world was not ready. Investors were not pouring billions
| into capabilities. China did not particularly care to focus
| on this one research area, among many, that the US is still
| solidly ahead in.
|
| The only reason timelines are as short as they are is
| _because_ of people at OpenAI and thereafter Anthropic
| deciding that "they had no choice". They had a choice, and
| they took the one which has chopped at the very least _years_
| off of the time we would otherwise have had to handle all of
| this. I can barely begin to describe the magnitude of the
| crime that they have committed -- and so I suggest that you
| consider that before propagating the same destructive lies
| that led us here in the first place.
| pixl97 wrote:
| The simplicity of the statement "If we don't do it, someone
| else will." and thinking behind it eventually means someone
| will do just that unless otherwise prevented by some
| regulatory function.
|
| Simply put, with the ever increasing hardware speeds we
| were dumping out for other purposes this day would have
| come sooner than later. We're talking about only a year or
| two really.
| Q6T46nT668w6i3m wrote:
| This is worse than the mansplaining scene from Annie Hall.
| qwertox wrote:
| That is some awesome webdesign.
| IshKebab wrote:
| This is hilariously over-optimistic on the timescales. Like on
| this timeline we'll have a Mars colony in 10 years, immortality
| drugs in 15 and Half Life 3 in 20.
| sva_ wrote:
| You forgot fusion energy
| klabb3 wrote:
| Quantum AI powered by cold fusion and blockchain when?
| zvitiate wrote:
| No, sooner lol. We'll have aging cures and brain uploading by
| late 2028. Dyson Swarms will be "emerging tech".
| mchusma wrote:
| I like that the "slowdown" scenario has by 2030 we have a robot
| economy, cure for aging, brain uploading, and are working on a
| Dyson Sphere.
| ctoth wrote:
| Can you share your detailed projection of what you expect the
| future to look like so I can compare?
| Gud wrote:
| Slightly slower web frameworks by 2026. By 2030, a lot
| slower.
| IshKebab wrote:
| Sure
|
| 5 years: AI coding assistants are a lot better than they are
| now, but still can't actually replace junior engineers (at
| least ones that aren't shit). AI fraud is rampant, with faked
| audio commonplace. Some companies try replacing call centres
| with AI, but it doesn't really work and everyone hates it.
|
| Tesla's robotaxi won't be available, but Waymo will be in
| most major US cities.
|
| 10 years: AI assistants are now useful enough that you can
| use them in the ways that Apple and Google really wanted you
| to use Siri/Google Assistant 5 years ago. "What have I got
| scheduled for today?" will give useful results, and you'll be
| able to have a natural conversation and take actions that you
| trust ("cancel my 10am meeting; tell them I'm sick").
|
| AI coding assistants are now _very_ good and everyone will
| use them. Junior devs will still exist. Vibe coding will
| actually work.
|
| Most AI Startups will have gone bust, leaving only a few
| players.
|
| Art-based AI will be very popular and artists will use it all
| the time. It will be part of their normal workflow.
|
| Waymo will become available in Europe.
|
| Some receptionists and PAs have been replaced by AI.
|
| 15 years: AI researchers finally discover how to do on-line
| learning.
|
| Humanoid robots are robust and smart enough to survive in the
| real world and start to be deployed in controlled
| environments (e.g. factories) doing simple tasks.
|
| Driverless cars are "normal" but not owned by individuals and
| driverful cars are still way more common.
|
| Small light computers become fast enough that autonomous
| slaughter it's become reality (i.e. drones that can do their
| own navigation and face recognition etc.)
|
| 20 years: Valve confirms no Half Life 3.
| archagon wrote:
| > _Small light computers become fast enough that autonomous
| slaughter it 's become reality_
|
| This is the real scary bit. I'm not convinced that AI will
| _ever_ be good enough to think independently and create
| novel things without some serious human supervision, but
| none of that matters when applied to machines that are
| destructive by design and already have expectations of
| collateral damage. Slaughterbots are going to be the new
| WMDs -- and corporations are salivating at the prospect of
| being first movers.
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiiqiaUBAL8
| dontlikeyoueith wrote:
| Zero Dawn future confirmed.
| Trumpion wrote:
| Why do you believe that?
|
| The lowest estimations of how much compute our brain
| represents was already achieved with the last chip from
| Nvidia (Blackwell).
|
| The newest gpu cluster from Google, Microsoft, Facebook,
| iax, and co have added so crazy much compute it's absurd.
| pixl97 wrote:
| >I'm not convinced that AI will ever be good enough to
| think independently a
|
| and
|
| >Why do you believe that?
|
| What takes less effort, time to deploy, and cost? I mean
| there is at least some probability we kill ourselves off
| with dangerous semi-thinking war machines leading to
| theater scale wars to the point society falls apart and
| we don't have the expensive infrastructure to make AI as
| envisioned in the future.
|
| With that said, I'm in the camp that we can create AGI as
| nature was able to with a random walk, we'll be able to
| reproduce it with intelligent design.
| Quarrelsome wrote:
| you should add a bit where AI is pushed really hard in
| places where the subjects have low political power, like
| management of entry level workers, care homes or education
| and super bad stuff happens.
|
| Also we need a big legal event to happen where (for
| example) autonomous driving is part of a really big
| accident where lots of people die or someone brings a
| successful court case that an AI mortgage underwriter is
| discriminating based on race or caste. It won't matter if
| AI is actually genuinely responsible for this or not, what
| will matter is the push-back and the news cycle.
|
| Maybe more events where people start successfully gaming
| deployed AI at scale in order to get mortgages they
| shouldn't or get A-grades when they shouldn't.
| 9dev wrote:
| It's soothing to read a realistic scenario amongst all of
| the ludicrous hype on here.
| Trumpion wrote:
| We currently don't see any ceiling if this continues in this
| speed, we will have cheaper, faster and better models every
| quarter.
|
| Therewas never something progressing so fast
|
| It would be very ignorant not to keep a very close eye on it
|
| There is still a a chance that it will happen a lot slower and
| the progression will be slow enough that we adjust in time.
|
| But besides AI we also now get robots. The impact for a lot of
| people will be very real
| turnsout wrote:
| IMO they haven't even predicted mid-2025. >
| Coding AIs increasingly look like autonomous agents rather than
| mere assistants: taking instructions via Slack or Teams and
| making substantial code changes on their own, sometimes saving
| hours or even days.
|
| Yeah, we are _so_ not there yet.
| noncoml wrote:
| 2015: We will have FSD(full autonomy) by 2017
| porphyra wrote:
| Seems very sinophobic. Deepseek and Manus have shown that China
| is legitimately an innovation powerhouse in AI but this article
| makes it sound like they will just keep falling behind without
| stealing.
| princealiiiii wrote:
| Stealing model weights isn't even particularly useful long-
| term, it's the training + data generation recipes that have
| value.
| MugaSofer wrote:
| That whole section seems to be pretty directly based on
| DeepSeek's "very impressive work" with R1 being simultaneously
| very impressive, and several months behind OpenAI. (They more
| or less say as much in footnote 36.) They blame this on US chip
| controls just barely holding China back from the cutting edge
| by a few months. I wouldn't call that a knock on Chinese
| innovation.
| ugh123 wrote:
| Don't confuse innovation with optimisation.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Don't confuse designing the product with winning the market.
| a3w wrote:
| How so? Spoiler: US dooms mankind, China is the saviour in the
| two endings.
| disambiguation wrote:
| Amusing sci-fi, i give it a B- for bland prose, weak story
| structure, and lack of originality - assuming this isn't all AI
| gen slop which is awarded an automatic F.
|
| >All three sets of worries--misalignment, concentration of power
| in a private company, and normal concerns like job loss--motivate
| the government to tighten its control.
|
| A private company becoming "too powerful" is a non issue for
| governments, unless a drone army is somewhere in that timeline.
| Fun fact the former head of the NSA sits on the board of Open AI.
|
| Job loss is a non issue, if there are corresponding economic
| gains they can be redistributed.
|
| "Alignment" is too far into the fiction side of sci-fi.
| Anthropomorphizing today's AI is tantamount to mental illness.
|
| "But really, what if AGI?" We either get the final say or we
| don't. If we're dumb enough to hand over all responsibility to an
| unproven agent and we get burned, then serves us right for being
| lazy. But if we forge ahead anyway and AGI becomes something
| beyond review, we still have the final say on the power switch.
| atemerev wrote:
| What is this, some OpenAI employee fan fiction? Did Sam himself
| write this?
|
| OpenAI models are not even SOTA, except that new-ish style
| transfer / illustration thing that made all us living in Ghibli
| world for a few days. R1 is _better_ than o1, and open-weights.
| GPT-4.5 is disappointing, except for a few narrow areas where it
| excels. DeepResearch is impressive though, but the moat is in
| tight web search / Google Scholar search integration, not
| weights. So far, I'd bet on open models or maybe Anthropic, as
| Claude 3.7 is the current SOTA for most tasks.
|
| As of the timeline, this is _pessimistic_. I already write 90%
| code with Claude, so are most of my colleagues. Yes, it does
| errors, and overdoes things. Just like a regular human middle-
| stage software engineer.
|
| Also fun that this assumes relatively stable politics in the US
| and relatively functioning world economy, which I think is crazy
| optimistic to rely on these days.
|
| Also, superpersuasion _already works_, this is what I am
| researching and testing. It is not autonomous, it is human-
| assisted by now, but it is a superpower for those who have it,
| and it explains some of the things happening with the world right
| now.
| achierius wrote:
| > superpersuasion _already works_
|
| Is this demonstrated in any public research? Unless you just
| mean something like "good at persuading" -- which is different
| from my understanding of the term -- I find this hard to
| believe.
| atemerev wrote:
| No, I meant "good at persuading", it is not 100% efficiency
| of course.
| infecto wrote:
| Could not get through the entire thing. It's mostly a bunch of
| fantasy intermingled with bits of possible interesting discussion
| points. The whole right side metrics are purely a distraction
| because entirely fiction.
| archagon wrote:
| Website design is nice, though.
| Willingham wrote:
| - October 2027 - 'The ability to automate most white-collar jobs'
|
| I wonder which jobs would not be automated? Therapy? HR?
| hsuduebc2 wrote:
| Board of directors
| Joshuatanderson wrote:
| This is extremely important. Scott Alexander's earlier
| predictions are holding up extremely well, at least on image
| progress.
| dingnuts wrote:
| how am I supposed to take articles like this seriously when they
| say absolutely false bullshit like this
|
| > the AIs can do everything taught by a CS degree
|
| no, they fucking can't. not at all. not even close. I feel like
| I'm taking crazy pills. Does anyone really think this?
|
| Why have I not seen -any- complete software created via vibe
| coding yet?
| ladberg wrote:
| It doesn't claim it's possible now, it's a fictional short
| story claiming "AIs can do everything taught by a CS degree" by
| the end of 2026.
| vagab0nd wrote:
| Bad future predictions: short-sighted guesses based on current
| trends and vibe. Often depend on individuals or companies. Made
| by free-riders. Example: Twitter.
|
| Good future predictions: insights into the fundamental principles
| that shape society, more law than speculation. Made by
| visionaries. Example: Vernor Vinge.
| dalmo3 wrote:
| "1984 was set in 1984."
|
| https://youtu.be/BLYwQb2T_i8?si=JpIXIFd9u-vUJCS4
| pera wrote:
| _From the same dilettantes who brought you the Zizians and other
| bizarre cults..._ thanks but I rather read Nostradamus
| soupfordummies wrote:
| The "race" ending reads like Universal Paperclips fan fiction :)
| 827a wrote:
| Readers should, charitably, interpret this as "the sequence of
| events which need to happen in order for OpenAI to justify the
| inflow of capital necessary to survive".
|
| Your daily vibe coding challenge: Get GPT-4o to output functional
| code which uses Google Vertex AI to generate a text embedding. If
| they can solve that one by July, then maybe we're on track for
| "curing all disease and aging, brain uploading, and colonizing
| the solar system" by 2030.
| MaxfordAndSons wrote:
| As someone who's fairly ignorant of how AI actually works at a
| low level, I feel incapable of assessing how realistic any of
| these projections are. But the "bad ending" was certainly
| chilling.
|
| That said, this snippet from the bad ending nearly made me spit
| my coffee out laughing:
|
| > There are even bioengineered human-like creatures (to humans
| what corgis are to wolves) sitting in office-like environments
| all day viewing readouts of what's going on and excitedly
| approving of everything, since that satisfies some of Agent-4's
| drives.
| Jun8 wrote:
| ACT post where Scott Alexander provides some additional info:
| https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/introducing-ai-2027.
|
| Manifold currently predicts 30%:
| https://manifold.markets/IsaacKing/ai-2027-reports-predictio...
| crazystar wrote:
| 47% now soo a coin toss
| layer8 wrote:
| 32% again now.
| elicksaur wrote:
| Note the market resolves by:
|
| > Resolution will be via a poll of Manifold moderators. If
| they're split on the issue, with anywhere from 30% to 70% YES
| votes, it'll resolve to the proportion of YES votes.
|
| So you should really read it as "Will >30% of Manifold
| moderators in 2027 think the 'predictions seem to have been
| roughly correct up until that point'?"
| nmilo wrote:
| The whole thing hinges on the fact that AI will be able to help
| with AI research
|
| How will it come up with the theoretical breakthroughs necessary
| to beat the scaling problem GPT-4.5 revealed when it hasn't been
| proven that LLMs can come up with novel research in any field at
| all?
| cavisne wrote:
| Scaling transformers has been basically alchemy, the
| breakthroughs aren't from rigorous science they are from trying
| stuff and hoping you don't waste millions of dollars in
| compute.
|
| Maybe the company that just tells an AI to generate 100s of
| random scaling ideas, and tries them all is the one that will
| win. That company should probably be 100 percent committed to
| this approach also, no FLOPs spent on ghibli inference.
| acje wrote:
| 2028 human text is too ambiguous a data source to get to AGI.
| 2127 AGI figures out flying cars and fusion power.
| suddenlybananas wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Disappointment
|
| I suspect something similar will come for the people who actually
| believe this.
| panic08 wrote:
| LOL
| superconduct123 wrote:
| Why are the biggest AI predictions always made by people who
| aren't deep in the tech side of it? Or actually trying to use the
| models day-to-day...
| ZeroTalent wrote:
| People who are skilled fiction writers might lack technical
| expertise. In my opinion, this is simply an interesting piece
| of science fiction.
| AlphaAndOmega0 wrote:
| Daniel Kokotajlo released the (excellent) 2021 forecast. He was
| then hired by OpenAI, and not at liberty to speak freely, until
| he quit in 2024. He's part of the team making this forecast.
|
| The others include:
|
| Eli Lifland, a superforecaster who is ranked first on RAND's
| Forecasting initiative. You can read more about him and his
| forecasting team here. He cofounded and advises AI Digest and
| co-created TextAttack, an adversarial attack framework for
| language models.
|
| Jonas Vollmer, a VC at Macroscopic Ventures, which has done its
| own, more practical form of successful AI forecasting: they
| made an early stage investment in Anthropic, now worth $60
| billion.
|
| Thomas Larsen, the former executive director of the Center for
| AI Policy, a group which advises policymakers on both sides of
| the aisle.
|
| Romeo Dean, a leader of Harvard's AI Safety Student Team and
| budding expert in AI hardware.
|
| And finally, Scott Alexander himself.
| kridsdale3 wrote:
| TBH, this kind of reads like the pedigrees of the former
| members of the OpenAI board. When the thing blew up, and
| people started to apply real scrutiny, it turned out that
| about half of them had no real experience in pretty much
| anything at all, except founding Foundations and instituting
| Institutes.
|
| A lot of people (like the Effective Altruism cult) seem to
| have made a career out of selling their Sci-Fi content as
| policy advice.
| flappyeagle wrote:
| c'mon man, you don't believe that, let's have a little less
| disingenuousness on the internet
| superconduct123 wrote:
| I mean either researchers creating new models or people
| building products using the current models
|
| Not all these soft roles
| Tenoke wrote:
| ..The first person listed is ex-OpenAI.
| torginus wrote:
| Because these people understand human psychology and how to
| play on fears (of doom, or missing out) and insecurities of
| people, and write compelling narratives while sounding smart.
|
| They are great at selling stories - they sold the story of the
| crypto utopia, now switching their focus to AI.
|
| This seems to be another appeal to enforce AI regulation in the
| name of 'AI safetyiism', which was made 2 years ago but the
| threats in it haven't really panned out.
|
| For example an oft repeated argument is the dangerous ability
| of AI to design chemical and biological weapons, I wish some
| expert could weigh in on this, but I believe the ability to
| theorycraft pathogens effective in the real world is absolutely
| marginal - you need actual lab work and lots of physical
| experiments to confirm your theories.
|
| Likewise the dangers of AI systems to exfiltrate themselves to
| multi-million dollar AI datacenter GPU systems everyone
| supposedly just has lying about, is ... not super realistc.
|
| The ability of AIs to hack computer systems is much less
| theoretical - however as AIs will get better at black-hat
| hacking, they'll get better at white-hat hacking as well - as
| there's literally no difference between the two, other than
| intent.
|
| And here in lies a crucial limitation of alignment and
| safetyism - sometimes there's no way to tell apart harmful and
| harmless actions, other than whether the person undertaking
| them means well.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| Because you can't be a full time blogger and also a full time
| engineer. Both take all your time, even ignoring time taken to
| build talent. There is simply a tradeoff of what you do with
| your life.
|
| There _are_ engineers with AI predictions, but you aren 't
| reading them, because building an audience like Scott Alexander
| takes decades.
| rglover wrote:
| Aside from the other points about understanding human
| psychology here, there's also a deep well they're trying to
| fill inside themselves. That of being someone who can't create
| things without shepherding others and see AI as the "great
| equalizer" that will finally let them taste the positive
| emotions associated with creation.
|
| The funny part, to me, is that it won't. They'll continue to
| toil and move on to the next huck just as fast as they jumped
| on this one.
|
| And I say this from observation. Nearly all of the people I've
| seen pushing AI hyper-sentience are smug about it and,
| coincidentally, have never built anything on their own (besides
| a company or organization of others).
|
| Every single one of the rational "we're on the right path but
| not quite there" takes have been from seasoned engineers who at
| least have _some_ hands-on experience with the underlying tech.
| ohgr wrote:
| In the path to self value people explain their worth by what
| they say not what they know. If what they say is horse dung, it
| is irrelevant to their ego if there is someone dumber than they
| are listening.
|
| This bullshit article is written for that audience.
|
| Say bullshit enough times and people will invest.
| fire_lake wrote:
| > OpenBrain still keeps its human engineers on staff, because
| they have complementary skills needed to manage the teams of
| Agent-3 copies
|
| Yeah, sure they do.
|
| Everyone seems to think AI will take someone else's jobs!
| mlsu wrote:
| https://xkcd.com/605/
| mullingitover wrote:
| These predictions are made without factoring in the trade version
| of the Pearl Harbor attack the US just initiated on its allies
| (and itself, by lobotomizing its own research base and decimating
| domestic corporate R&D efforts with the aforementioned trade
| war).
|
| They're going to need to rewrite this from scratch in a quarter
| unless the GOP suddenly collapses and congress reasserts control
| over tariffs.
| torginus wrote:
| Much has been made in its article about autonomous agents ability
| to do research via browsing the web - the web is 90% garbage by
| weight (including articles on certain specialist topics).
|
| And it shows. When I used GPT's deep research to research the
| topic, it generated a shallow and largely incorrect summary of
| the issue, owning mostly to its inability to find quality
| material, instead it ended up going for places like Wikipedia,
| and random infomercial listicles found on Google.
|
| I have a trusty Electronics textbook written in the 80s, I'm sure
| generating a similarly accurate, correct and deep analysis on
| circuit design using only Google to help would be 1000x harder
| than sitting down and working through that book and understanding
| it.
| somerandomness wrote:
| Agreed. However, source curation and agents are two different
| parts of Deep Research. What if you provided that textbook to a
| reliable agent?
|
| Plug: We built https://RadPod.ai to allow you to do that, i.e.
| Deep Research on your data.
| preommr wrote:
| So, once again, we're in the era of "There's an [AI] app for
| that".
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| that might solve your sourcing problem, but now you need to
| have faith it will draw conclusions and parallels from the
| material accurately. That seems even harder than the original
| problem; I'll stick with decent search on quality source
| material.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| > AI has started to take jobs, but has also created new ones.
|
| Yeah nah, theres a key thing missing here, the number of jobs
| created needs to be more than the ones it's destroyed, _and_ they
| need to be better paying _and_ happen in time.
|
| History says that actually when this happens, an entire
| generation is yeeted on to the streets (see powered looms,
| Jacquard machine, steam powered machine tools) All of that cheap
| labour needed to power the new towns and cities was created by
| automation of agriculture and artisan jobs.
|
| Dark satanic mills were fed the decedents of once reasonably
| prosperous crafts people.
|
| AI as presented here will kneecap the wages of a good proportion
| of the decent paying jobs we have now. This will cause huge
| economic disparities, and probably revolution. There is a reason
| why the royalty of Europe all disappeared when they did...
|
| So no, the stock market will not be growing because of AI, it
| will be in spite of it.
|
| Plus china knows that unless they can occupy most of its
| population with some sort of work, they are finished. AI and
| decent robot automation are an existential threat to the CCP, as
| much as it is to what ever remains of the "west"
| OgsyedIE wrote:
| Unfortunately the current system is doing a bad job of finding
| replacements for dwindling crucial resources such as petroleum
| basins, new generations of workers, unoccupied orbital
| trajectories, fertile topsoil and copper ore deposits. Either
| the current system gets replaced with a new system or it
| doesn't.
| kypro wrote:
| > and probably revolution
|
| I theorise that revolution would be near-impossible in post-AGI
| world. If people consider where power comes from it's
| relatively obvious that people will likely suffer and die on
| mass if we ever create AGI.
|
| Historically the general public have held the vast majority of
| power in society. 100+ years ago this would have been physical
| power - the state has to keep you happy or the public will come
| for them with pitchforks. But in an age of modern weaponry the
| public today would be pose little physical threat to the state.
|
| Instead in todays democracy power comes from the publics
| collective labour and purchasing power. A government can't risk
| upsetting people too much because a government's power today is
| not a product of its standing army, but the product of its
| economic strength. A government needs workers to create
| businesses and produce goods and therefore the goals of
| government generally align with the goals of the public.
|
| But in an post-AGI world neither businesses or the state need
| workers or consumers. In this world if you want something you
| wouldn't pay anyone for it or workers to produce it for you,
| instead you would just ask your fleet of AGIs to get you the
| resource.
|
| In this world people become more like pests. They offer no
| economic value yet demand that AGI owners (wherever publicly or
| privately owned) share resources with them. If people revolted
| any AGI owner would be far better off just deploying a
| bioweapon to humanely kill the protestors rather than sharing
| resources with them.
|
| Of course, this is assuming the AGI doesn't have it's own goals
| and just sees the whole of humanely as nuance to be stepped
| over in the same way humans will happy step over animals if
| they interfere with our goals.
|
| Imo humanity has 10-20 years left max if we continue on this
| path. There can be no good outcome of AGI because it would even
| make sense for the AGI or those who control the AGI to be
| aligned with goals of humanity.
| pydry wrote:
| >History says that actually when this happens, an entire
| generation is yeeted on to the streets
|
| History hasnt had to contend with a birth rate of 0.6-1.4.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| > The agenda that gets the most resources is faithful chain of
| thought: force individual AI systems to "think in English" like
| the AIs of 2025, and don't optimize the "thoughts" to look nice.
| The result is a new model, Safer-1.
|
| Oh hey, it's the errant thought I had in my head this morning
| when I read the paper from Anthropic about CoT models lying about
| their thought processes.
|
| While I'm on my soapbox, I will point out that if your goal is
| preservation of democracy (itself an instrumental goal for human
| control), then you want to decentralize and distribute as much as
| possible. Centralization is the path to dictatorship. A
| significant tension in the Slowdown ending is the fact that,
| while we've avoided _AI_ coups, we 've given a handful of people
| the ability to do a perfectly ordinary human coup, and humans are
| very, very good at coups.
|
| Your best bet is smaller models that don't have as many unused
| weights to hide misalignment in; along with interperability _and_
| faithful CoT research. Make a model that satisfies your safety
| criteria and then make sure _everyone_ gets a copy so subgroups
| of humans get no advantage from hoarding it.
| pinetone wrote:
| I think it's worth noting that all of the authors have financial
| or professional incentive to accelerate the AI hype bandwagon as
| much as possible.
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| But, I think this piece falls into a misconception about AI
| models as singular entities. There will be many instances of any
| AI model and each instance can be opposed to other instances.
|
| So, it's not that "an AI" becomes super intelligent, what we
| actually seem to have is an ecosystem of blended human and
| artificial intelligences (including corporations!); this
| constitutes a distributed cognitive ecology of superintelligence.
| This is very different from what they discuss.
|
| This has implications for alignment, too. It isn't so much about
| the alignment of AI to people, but that both human and AI need to
| find alignment with nature. There is a kind of natural harmony in
| the cosmos; that's what superintelligence will likely align to,
| naturally.
| popalchemist wrote:
| For now.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-04-03 23:00 UTC)