upvote
How much belief is that? I tend to skip the HN posts that are about AI.
reply
Most of HN does not take the idea of superintelligence seriously, and until this year did not take the idea of AGI seriously.

I think LessWrong is a much better community for rational takes on AI, they've been reasoning about these risks for years under a much more sound logical framework

reply
I'm a researcher in the field and I definitely take AGI seriously, but think all the major labs and most of the academic research is not helping achieve it any serious way. The field is seriously delusional (and has been ever since GPT 3 was released).

Even though my PhD research was in generative language modeling, I got into it for the pursuit of AGI. I just think LLMs are a dead end for AGI.

reply
> I'm a researcher in the field and I definitely take AGI seriously

> I just think LLMs are a dead end for AGI.

I have no background in CS, so apologies if this is a naive question, but what makes you take AGI seriously, but also say that LLMs are a dead end?

i.e., is there something else that you think is not a dead end?

reply
Genuine question: can I ask why?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but it seems early to say yes or no about a particular technology, and LLMs seem especially hard to dismiss given how magical / magic-adjacent they feel :)

I'd be curious to hear more, if you don't mind sharing.

reply
Looked up LessWrong. Eh, philosophy people, also known for that "Roko's basilisk" meme. I'm gonna pass.
reply
deleted
reply
I think HN believes in AGI. HN probably doesn't believe LLMs will lead to AGI.

Also lots of tech people, HN included, are waking up to technology not only including penicillin (net positive for humanity) but also dynamite (best case: net neutral).

reply
Dynamite has been incredibly beneficial for humanity.
reply