This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Can you post to some of your forecasts? I know that you are bullish on the tech - but my vague impression was that they survived a sanity check - aka were not like the wet nightmares of AI2027
My current timelines (stable for the last year or two) are 50% odds of AGI by 2030, 70% by 2033.
My operational definition of AGI is "can do ~everything a human can with a computer as well or better than the the median human", ideally a 130 IQ human. That focuses on real world tasks, and also considers speed and reliability. I consider ASI achieved when the models reliably beat the smartest humans alive at similar or lower figures for $/unit of cognitive output.
In other words, if you attach my version of AGI to a computer with access to the internet it can do anything a human could with the same affordances, about as well. Probably with a video feed and a virtual keyboard or mouse, but that's not a big deal. Current models are too spiky in terms of capabilities to count, particularly when it comes to agentic workflows like simply using vision and direct input to get tasks done. I can't solve an Erdos problem even if you give me 5 years to prepare, but I can do more with my desktop PC than Claude can, at least much faster.
I expect that the temporal delta from that version of AGI to true ASI is going to be rather short. Maybe a year or two, medium confidence guess.
So pretty mild stuff, although I do find your definition of AGI/ASI somewhat texas sharpshooter style. On the other hand no one seems to have to be able to define those things in a way that is better so there's that.
It's interesting times when I'm told that my forecasting of a 50% chance of AI becoming human-parity or better in 4 years is described as a tame take. Not complaining, just observing things with grim resignation. I'll know AGI is here when I see it, or a few years later, if unemployed.
I wish I'm wrong, and that I had been wrong so far. It's no fun engaging in arguments where you want your opponents to win.
The whole of civilization and industrialization has been underpinned by using energy to achieve superhuman feats. Most of the worries so far about AI are thin veil for some people's fear that their greatest labor asset will lose value rapidly. And probably some narcissistic injury if we are using LP definitions.
If I didn't get worried that we created cars that could run 20 times faster than a human 24/7 or that we have trivialized the magic of flying to the point that it is utterly trivial, boring and so on, why should I worry that some machine will think better than me. Hell - I should be worried if we don't invent such a machine. Whatever you can think of - we are running out of it - out of soil, out of biomass, out of oil. We need faster science progression to get out of the trap that is our lovely blue planet.
And your predictions are tame because they fit linear advancement at current rates. And we will probably get there even on log. Your definition of AGI is modest.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link