[HN Gopher] OpenAI Researcher Jason Wei: It's obvious that it wi...
___________________________________________________________________
OpenAI Researcher Jason Wei: It's obvious that it will not be a
"fast takeoff"
Author : s-macke
Score : 17 points
Date : 2025-06-30 19:26 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| 4ndrewl wrote:
| Jam tomorrow
| neom wrote:
| "Finally, maybe this is controversial but ultimately progress in
| science is bottlenecked by real-world experiments."
|
| I feel like this has been the vast majority of consensus around
| these halls? I can't count the number of HN comments I've nodded
| at around the idea that irl will become the bottleneck.
| bglazer wrote:
| This shows just how completely detached from reality this whole
| "takeoff" narrative is. It's utterly baffling that someone
| would consider it "controversial" that understanding the world
| requires * _observing the world*_.
|
| The hallmark example of this is life extension. There's a not
| insignificant fraction of very powerful, very wealthy people
| who think that their machine god is going to read all of reddit
| and somehow cogitate its way to a cure for ageing. But how
| would we know if it works? Seriously, how else do we know if
| our AGI's life extension therapy is working besides just
| fucking waiting and seeing if people still die? Each iteration
| will take years (if not decades) just to test.
| neom wrote:
| Last year went for a walk with a fairly known AI researcher,
| I was somewhat shocked that they didn't understand the
| difference between thoughts, feelings and emotions. This is
| what I find interesting about all these top someones in AI.
|
| I presume the teams at the frontier labs are
| interdisciplinary (philosophy, psychology, biology,
| technology) - however that may be a poor assumption.
| janalsncm wrote:
| A lot of this is pretty intuitive but I'm glad to hear it from a
| prestigious researcher. It's a little annoying to hear people
| quote Hinton's opinion as the "godfather" of AI as if there's
| nothing more we need to know.
|
| On a related note, I think there is a bit of nuance to
| superintelligence. The following are all notable landmarks on the
| climb to superintelligence:
|
| 1. At least as good as any human at a single cognitive task.
|
| 2. At least as good as any human on all cognitive tasks.
|
| 3. Better than any human on a single cognitive task.
|
| 4. Better than any individual human at all cognitive tasks.
|
| 5. Better than any group of humans at all cognitive tasks.
|
| We are not yet at point 4 yet. But even after that point, a group
| of humans may still outperform the AI.
|
| Why this matters is if part of the "group" is performing
| empirical experiments to conduct scientific research, an AI on
| its own won't outperform your group unless the AI can also
| perform those experiments or find some way to avoid doing them.
| This is another way of restating the original Twitter post.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-06-30 23:01 UTC)