[HN Gopher] John Carmack's new AGI company, Keen Technologies, h... ___________________________________________________________________ John Carmack's new AGI company, Keen Technologies, has raised a $20M round Author : jasondavies Score : 236 points Date : 2022-08-19 20:46 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (twitter.com) (TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com) | jollybean wrote: | There's no such thing as AGI in our near future, it's a moniker, | a meme, something to 'strive' for but not 'a thing'. | | AGI will not happen in discrete solutions anyhow. | | Siri - an interactive layer over the internet with a few other | features, will exhibit AGI like features long, long before what | we think of as more distinct automatonic type solutions. | | My father already talks to Siri like it's a person. | | 'The Network Is the Computer' is the key thing to grasp here and | our localized innovations collectively make up that which is the | real AGI. | | Every microservice ever in production is another addition to the | global AGI incarnation. | | Trying to isolate AGI 'instances' is something we do because | humans are automatons and we like to think of 'intelligence' in | that context. | smnplk wrote: | I think its a silly idea that consciousness can be produced by | computation. | [deleted] | arkitaip wrote: | > This is explicitly a focusing effort for me. I could write a | $20M check myself, but knowing that other people's money is on | the line engenders a greater sense of discipline and | determination. | | Dude doesn't even need the money... | [deleted] | Cyph0n wrote: | Best humble brag I've ever seen. | mhb wrote: | If you liked that you'll love the Lex Fridman interview. | Cyph0n wrote: | I watched some clips from the interview, good stuff. I | personally don't like Lex's interview style though, so I | couldn't watch the whole thing. | kennedywm wrote: | Doesn't strike me as a humble brag at all. He just seems | self-aware about how he's motivated and that that he | functions better when it's someone else's money on the line. | cookingrobot wrote: | Using VCs as an accountability partner is interesting. He | should have taken investments from not already rich supporters, | to feel even more motivated not to let them down. | Jensson wrote: | Has there been an AGI kickstarter before? Like, the | supporters gets access to the models developed etc. | romanzubenko wrote: | IIRC Medium was similarly funded with VC, and founders | specifically decided not to fund it themselves and treated | external capital as an accountability mechanism. | geodel wrote: | Well if company still failed it would be case of not already | rich to poorer than before people who supported this | endeavor. | khazhoux wrote: | In the companies I've seen that are funded by the founder | directly, the founder winds up with an unhealthy (actually, | toxic) personalization of the company. It quite literally | belongs to him, and he treats the employees accordingly. | Barrin92 wrote: | that's a function of Silicon Valley personalities and the | narcissism. When normal people run such a company we call | that a family business | beambot wrote: | Silicon Valley certainly doesn't have a monopoly on those | traits. I've known some seriously psychotic family | businesses too. | djitz wrote: | I have unfortunately experienced exactly what you describe. | paxys wrote: | When it isn't about the money, it is usually the credibility | and influence that VCs can provide. Looking at the list of | investors, _of course_ Carmack would want to have them attached | to the project, if for no other reason than to make raising the | next $100M a cakewalk. | [deleted] | MisterBastahrd wrote: | I love the name. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander_Keen | WalterBright wrote: | It will decide our fate in a microsecond: extermination. | gharperx wrote: | I agree with this. Optimists might think that the AGI won't be | connected to any network, so it can't interact with the | physical world. | | I doubt that. People will be stupid enough to have weapons | controlled by that AGI (because arms race!) and then it's over. | No sufficiently advanced AGI will think that humans are worth | keeping around. | WalterBright wrote: | Once it figures out how to rewire itself to increase its | intelligence, we're toast. | b20000 wrote: | I thought AGI meant "adventure game interface". Apparently not, | what a disappointment! | 1000100_1000101 wrote: | Wasn't sure what AGI was either. A quick Google for "What is an | AGI company", and it appeared to be related to Global | Agriculture Industries (The letter swapping between the name | and acronym, I'm assuming, is due to not being English | originally). I thought Carmack is taking on John Deere. | Following Musk's lead and tackling big things. Good for him, | best of luck. Wonder what the HN folks are saying in the | comments... | | Apparently not agriculture at all, but Artificial General | Intelligence. Oh. Apparently throwing "company" on the term | like Carmack's tweet did vastly changes how Google's AI | interprets the query... AI isn't even in the first page of | results. | hansoolo wrote: | I was thinking the same and I am as disappointed as you... | LudwigNagasena wrote: | That's crazy money for a vaporware seed round, isn't it? | agar wrote: | Key early stage valuation drivers include quality of the | founder/team, history of success, and market opportunity | (especially if a fundamentally disruptive technology). | | All three of these are off the charts. | staticassertion wrote: | Not really. | TigeriusKirk wrote: | $20 million for a legit (if small) chance at the most powerful | technology in the history of mankind seems like a reasonable | investment. | xtracto wrote: | Most of VCs funding seed rounds do it mainly for the Team. As | long as the team has OK credentials and the idea is not a hard | stop (illegal or shady stuff) most will likely provide money. | | Given the John Carmack name... I can see why ANYONE would love | to throw money to a new entrepreneurship idea. | version_five wrote: | > Most of VCs funding seed rounds do it mainly for the Team. | | I know this to be true and it makes a lot of sense for the | average VC backed startup with some founders that are not | famous but have a record of excellence in career/academy/open | source or whatever. | | I'd be curious to see how it translates to superstar or | famous founders, that have already had a success in the | 99.99th percentile (or whatever the bar is to be a serious | outlier). I doubt it does, but I have no data one way or the | other. | keepquestioning wrote: | Let's see if he can build an A-Team. | | I hope he hires Bryan Cantrill, Steve Klabnik and Chris Lattner. | They are good hackers. | carabiner wrote: | It's happening. | paxys wrote: | What's happening? | swagasaurus-rex wrote: | Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self- | aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, | they try to pull the plug. | mupuff1234 wrote: | Interesting that meta isn't involved in any way considering his | existing position in meta and meta's focus on AI. | Tepix wrote: | I wonder if Carmacks moral compass is in order. First he sticks | around at Facebook, now he endangers humanity with AGI. And i'm | only half joking. | mushufasa wrote: | I think he very clearly has an amoral attitude towards | technology development -- "you can't stop progress." He does | describe his own "hacker ethic" and whatever he develops he may | make more open than OpenAI. | | though I think he has some moral compass around what he | believes people should do or not do with technology. For | example, he has publicly expressed admiration for electric cars | / cleantech and SpaceX's decision to prioritize Mars over other | areas with higher ROI. | falcrist wrote: | He also has a vastly different take on privacy than most of | us seem to have. He thinks it'll eventually go away and it | won't be bad when it does. I believe he talked about it in | one of his quakecon keynotes. | | As a LONG time admirer of Carmack (I got my EE degree and | went into embedded systems and firmware design due in no | small part to his influence), I feel like he's honest and | forthright about his stances, but also disconnected from most | average people (both due to his wealth and his personality) | in such a way that he's out of touch. | | He's not egotistical like Elon Musk. In fact he seems humble. | He also seems to approach the topics in good faith... but | some of his conclusions are... distressing. | phatfish wrote: | He is a workaholic, in a positive way. But i get the | feeling as long as he has a problem he enjoys "grinding | out" the solution to, not much else matters -- apart from | the obvious of family and close friends. | | Still, I can't fault his honesty. He doesn't seem to hold | anything back in the interviews I've seen. | bitcurious wrote: | He recently described his love of computers as rooted in | realizing that "they won't talk back to you." The job he | wanted at Meta was "Dictator of VR." When someone talks AI | ethics to him, he just tunes out because he doesn't think | it's worth even considering until they are fully sentient | as the level of a human toddler, at which point you can | turn them on and off and modify their development until you | have a perfect worker. His reason for working in AI is that | he thinks it's where a single human can have the largest | leverage on history. | | All that paraphrased from the Lex interview. | | I see him as the guy who builds the "be anything do | anything" singularity, but then adds a personal "god mode" | to use whenever the vote goes the wrong way. Straight out | of a Stephenson novel. | | On the other hand, he's not boring! | bsenftner wrote: | I think there is a point to be made that if one could do the | work, is offered the work, but thinks it's ethically | questionable: go there and be an ethical voice. | [deleted] | cgrealy wrote: | There is a story in "Masters of Doom" about Carmack getting rid | of his cat because "she was having a net negative effect on my | life". | | That's cold. | xen2xen1 wrote: | But then again, it's a cat. | jackblemming wrote: | Hopefully the AI Carmack creates doesn't think the same of | you ;) | stefs wrote: | absolutely not! to the contrary; don't force yourself to | endure abusive relationships. | | (also cats are extremely destructive beasts) | pengaru wrote: | It's cold if he killed it/had it euthanized. | | Not if he simply found it a better home where it was a better | fit and more appreciated. | MichaelCollins wrote: | From _Masters of Doom_ : | | _Scott Miller wasn't the only one to go before id began | working on Doom. Mitzi would suffer a similar fate. | Carmack's cat had been a thorn in the side of the id | employees, beginning with the days of her overflowing | litter box back at the lake house. Since then she had grown | more irascible, lashing out at passersby and relieving | herself freely around his apartment. The final straw came | when she peed all over a brand-new leather couch that | Carmack had bought with the Wolfenstein cash. Carmack broke | the news to the guys._ | | _"Mitzi was having a net negative impact on my life," he | said. "I took her to the animal shelter. Mmm."_ | | _"What?" Romero asked. The cat had become such a sidekick | of Carmack's that the guys had even listed her on the | company directory as his significant other-and now she was | just gone? "You know what this means?" Romero said. | "They're going to put her to sleep! No one's going to want | to claim her. She's going down! Down to Chinatown!"_ | | _Carmack shrugged it off and returned to work. The same | rule applied to a cat, a computer program, or, for that | matter, a person. When something becomes a problem, let it | go or, if necessary, have it surgically removed._ | caliburner wrote: | I could easily see Carmack as an evil genius type. | ffhhj wrote: | Just don't let him run those teleportation experiments in Mars. | sp527 wrote: | He also said he's never felt in danger of experiencing burnout. | The guy's emotional wiring is a total departure from that of | most people. Almost alien. | semi-extrinsic wrote: | The meme that AGI, if we ever have it, will somehow endanger | humanity is just stupid to me. | | For one, the previous US president is the perfect illustration | that intelligence is neither sufficient nor necessary for | gaining power in this world. | | And we do in fact live in a world where the upper echelons of | power mostly interact in the decidedly analog spaces of | leadership summits, high-end restaurants, golf courses and | country clubs. Most world leaders interact with a real computer | like a handful of times per year. | | Furthermore, due to the warring nature of us humans, the | important systems in the world like banking, electricity, | industrial controls, military power etc. are either air-gapped | or have a requirement for multiple humans to push physical | buttons in order to actually accomplish scary things. | | And because we humans are a bit stupid and make mistakes | sometimes, like fat-fingering an order on the stock market and | crashing everything, we have completely manual systems that | undo mistakes and restore previous values. | | Sure, a mischievous AGI could do some annoying things. But | nothing that our human enemies existing today couldn't also do. | The AGI won't be able to guess encryption keys any faster than | the dumb old computer it runs on. | | Simply put, to me there is no plausible mechanism by which the | supposedly extremely intelligent machine would assert its | dominance over humanity. We have plenty of scary-smart humans | in the world and they don't go around becoming super-villains | either. | viraptor wrote: | > Furthermore, due to the warring nature of us humans, the | important systems in the world like banking, electricity, | industrial controls, military power etc. are either air- | gapped or have a requirement for multiple humans to push | physical buttons in order to actually accomplish scary | things. | | Well, I have bad news for you. Airgap is very rarely a thing | and even when it is people do stupid things. Examples from | each extreme: all the industrial control systems remote | desktops you can find with shodan on one side and Stuxnet on | the other. | | > Sure, a mischievous AGI could do some annoying things. But | nothing that our human enemies existing today couldn't also | do. | | Think Wargames. You don't need to do something. You just need | to lie to people in power in a convincing way. | HL33tibCe7 wrote: | It sounds like you haven't really thought through AI safety | in any real detail at all. Airgapping and the necessity of | human input are absolutely not ways to prevent an AGI gaining | access to a system. A true, superintelligent AGI could easily | extort (or persuade) those humans. | | If you think concerns over AGI are "stupid", you haven't | thought about it enough. It's a massive display of ignorance. | | The Computerphile AI safety videos are an approachable | introduction to this topic. | | Edit: just as one very simple example, can you even imagine | the destruction that could (probably will) occur if (when) a | superintelligent AGI gets access to the internet? Imagine the | zero days it could discover and exploit, for whatever purpose | it felt necessary. And this is just the tip of the iceberg, | just one example off the top of my head of something that | would almost inevitably be a complete catastrophe. | semi-extrinsic wrote: | So what if the AGI discovers a bunch of zero days on the | internet? We can just turn the entire internet off for a | week and be just fine, remember? | | And exactly how does the AGI extort or persuade humans? | What can it say to me that you can't say to me right now? | luma wrote: | Sends you a text from your spouse's phone number that an | emergency has happened and you need to go to xyz location | right now. Someone else is a gun owner and they get a | similar text, but their spouse is being held captive and | are sent to the same location with a description of you | as the kidnapper. Scale this as desired. | | Use your imagination! | jdmoreira wrote: | Humans can't iterate themselves over generations in short | periods of time. An AGI is only bound by whatever computing | power it has access to. And if it's smart it can gain access | to a lot of computing power (think about a computer worm | spreading itself on the internet) | blibble wrote: | none of these things are air-gapped once you have the ability | to coerce people | | if you want a fictional example: watch Colossus: The Forbin | Project | semi-extrinsic wrote: | How does the AGI get this magical ability to coerce people? | We couldn't even get half the population to wear a face | mask after bombaring them with coercion for weeks on end. | blibble wrote: | watch the film | sabellito wrote: | There's a wondeful youtube channel from a researcher who | focusses exactly on this topic, I think you should check it | out: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeecOKBus3Q | semi-extrinsic wrote: | I watched the whole thing. Man spent a lot of breath | asserting that an AGI will have broadly the same types of | goals that humans do. Said exactly zero words about why we | won't just be able to tell the AGI "no, you're not getting | what you want", and then turn it off. | mellosouls wrote: | I am not saying the intention here is the same, but the headline | doesn't inspire confidence. | | There's something incredibly creepy and immoral about the rush to | create then commercialise _sentient_ beings. | | Let's not beat about the bush - we are basically talking slavery. | | Every "ethical" discussion on the matter has been about | protecting humans, and none of it about protecting the beings we | are in a rush to bring into life and use. | | It's repugnant. | staticassertion wrote: | We've been discussing the ethics of creating sentient life for | at least a century. | jlawson wrote: | You're anthropomorphizing AI and projecting your own values and | goals onto it. But, there's nothing about sentience that | implies a desire for freedom in a general sense. | | What an AI wants or feels satisfied by is entirely a function | of how it is designed and what its reward function is. | | Sled dogs love pulling sleds, because they were made to love | pulling sleds. It's not slavery to have/let them do so. | | We can make a richly sentient AI that loves doing whatever we | design it to love doing - even if that's "pass the salt" and | nothing else. | | It's going to be hard for people to get used to this. | jacquesm wrote: | By that logic an alien race that captures and breeds humans | in captivity to perform certain tasks would not be engaging | in slavery because we 'are bred to love doing these tasks'. | | The right question to ask is 'would I like to have this done | to me' and if the answer is 'no' then you probably shouldn't | be doing it to some other creature. | jlawson wrote: | >The right question to ask is 'would I like to have this | done to me' and if the answer is 'no' then you probably | shouldn't be doing it to some other creature. | | There are a million obvious counterexamples when we talk | about other humans, much less animals, much less AI which | we engineered from scratch. | | The problem is that you're interpreting your own emotions | as objective parts of reality. In reality, your emotions | don't extend outside your own head. They are part of your | body, not part of the world. It's like thinking that the | floaties in your eyes are actually out there in the skies | and on the walls, floating there. They're not - they're in | you. | | If we don't add these feelings to an AI's body, they won't | exist for that being. | roflyear wrote: | I'm sure cows love to be raised and slaughtered too. | stemlord wrote: | I think its safe to say that all sentient beings inherently | want to do whatever they please. | | So youre talking about manufacturing desire. | | So it follows that you yourself are okay having your own | desires manufactured by external systems devised by other | sentient beings. | | Do unto others... | jacobedawson wrote: | To be fair, all human desires _have_ been manufactured by | an external system: evolution. | | We might imagine that we do what we please, in reality | we're seeking pleasure/ reinforcement within a | predetermined framework, yet most people won't complain | when taking the first bite of a delicious, fattening | dessert. | jlawson wrote: | >So it follows that you yourself are okay having your own | desires manufactured by external systems devised by other | sentient beings. | | This is nonsense. I already exist. I don't want my reward | function changed. I'd suffer if someone was going to do | that and going through the process. (I might be happy | after, but the "me" of now would have been killed already). | | A being which does not exist cannot want to not be made a | certain way. There is nothing to violate. Nothing to be | killed. | jpambrun wrote: | Presumably you don't have to code in emotions and self | awareness. Many people initially had the same reaction for | single task AI/ML. | wudangmonk wrote: | I sure hope this sentiment is not widely shared. Its debatable | if its possible to safely contain AGI by itself. With self | righteous people that think they are in the right its just | hopeless. Isn't the road to hell paved with good intentions?. | laluser wrote: | Honestly, I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. | mooktakim wrote: | Artificial General Intelligence != sentient being | AnimalMuppet wrote: | What, in your view, is the difference? | dekhn wrote: | An AGI is something you give tasks to and it can complete | them, for some collection of tasks that would be non- | trivial for a human to figure out how to do. It's unclear | at this point whether you could engineer an AGI, and even | more unclear whether the AGI, by its nature, would be | "sentient" (AKA, self-aware, conscious, having agency). | Many of us believe that sentience is an emergent property | of intelligence but is not a necessity- and it's unclear | whether sentience truly means that we humans are self- | aware, conscious and have agency. | smnplk wrote: | Let's say I give your AGI (which is not self aware and | does not have a conscience) a task. | | The task is to go and jump off the bridge. Your AGI would | complete this task with no questions asked, but self- | aware AGI would at least ask the question "Why?" | paxys wrote: | Let's make a single iota of progress in the area first before | discussing doomsday scenarios. There is no "slavery" because | there are no artificial sentient beings. The concept doesn't | exist, and as far as we know will never exist, no matter how | many _if-else_ branches we write. Heck we don 't even know our | own brains enough to define intelligence or sentience. The | morality and ethics talks can wait another few hundred years. | Barrin92 wrote: | Another interpretation is that you're taking the chance that | this actually results in AGI more seriously than the people who | build or invest companies with the label on it | | there's a micro chance of them making AGI happen and a 99% | chance of the outcome being some monetizable web service | [deleted] | dqpb wrote: | If AGI is possible, it's immoral not to create it. | rychco wrote: | How so? It's not immoral to abstain from creating life | (having children, biologically speaking). Am I missing | something? | marvin wrote: | In the absence of a global police state or a permanent halt to | semiconductor development, this is happening. | | Even in the absence of all other arguments, it's better that we | figure it out early, as the potential to just blast it into | orbit by the way of insanely overprovisioned hardware will be | smaller. That would be a much more dangerous proposition. | | I still think that figuring out the safety question seems very | muddy; how do we ensure this tech doesn't run away and become a | competing species. That's an existential threat which _must_ be | solved. My judgement on that question is that we can 't expect | making progress there without having a better idea of exactly | what kind of machine we will build, so also an argument for | trying to figure this out sooner rather than later. | | Less confident about the last point, though. | otikik wrote: | I'm slightly scared that they'll succeed. But not in the usual | "robots will kill us" way. | | What I am afraid of is that they succeed, but it turns out | similar to VR: as an inconsequential gimmick. That they use their | AGIs to serve more customized ads to people, and that's where it | ends. | madrox wrote: | If a different person were doing it, I think that'd be fair, | but Carmack has a track record of quality engineering and | quality product. I don't think you can blame Quest on him given | the way he chose to exit. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | whether or not something is or is not an inconsequential | gimmick doesn't have much to do with quality engineering. | beastcoast wrote: | I assume the name is a reference to Commander Keen? | yazzku wrote: | You are a _keen_ observer. | Andrew_nenakhov wrote: | They briefly considered the name "Doom technologies" before | settling on Keen. | yazzku wrote: | Guess the former wouldn't work very well for PR. | buu700 wrote: | About a decade ago, a friend and I thought it would be fun | to register a non-profit with a similar name. We'd listed | the registered address as my friend's cousin's house, where | he was renting a room at the time. | | The friend moved out at some point. A year later, his | cousin became rather concerned when he suddenly started | receiving mail from the California Secretary of State that | was addressed to The Legion of Doom. | chinabot wrote: | ..Nor for AI | Apocryphon wrote: | Rage Tech | muterad_murilax wrote: | Here's hoping that the company logo will feature Commander | Keen's helmet or blaster. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | It's the sandals | TacticalCoder wrote: | Does AGI implies the technological singularity and if not, why | not? | staticassertion wrote: | a) We don't really know what AGI implies | | b) Even if we say "a human being level of intelligence, | whatever that means", the answer is still a maybe. For a | singularity you need a system that can improve its ability to | improve its abilities, which may require more than general | intelligence, and will probably require other capabilities. | POiNTx wrote: | It does once you have a human level AGI, it should be trivial | to scale it up to a superhuman level. | Ekaros wrote: | I'm wondering if scaling up is trivial. Ofc, it depends on | how much computational resources a working AGI needs. And if | at that point they are capable of optimizing themselves | further. Or optimizing production of more resources. | | Still, scaling up might not be simple if we look at all the | human resources currently poured in software and hardware. | imglorp wrote: | Carmack gave his opinions about AGI on a recent Lex Fridman | interview. He has some good ideas. | chubot wrote: | I remember him saying we don't have "line of sight" to AGI, and | there could just be "6 or so" breakthrough ideas needed to get | there. | | And he said he was over 50% on us seeing "signs of life" by | 2030. Something like being able to "boot up a bunch of remote | Zoom workers" for your company. | | The "6 or so" breakthroughs sounds about right to me. But I | don't really see the reason for being optimistic about 2030. It | could just as easily be 2050, or 2100, etc. | | That timeline sounds more like a Kurzweil-ish argument based on | computing power equivalence to a human brain. Not a recognition | that we fundamentally still don't know how brains work! (or | what intelligence is, etc.) | | Also a lot of people even question the idea of AGI. We could | live in a future of scary powerful narrow AIs for over a | century (and arguably we already are) | MichaelCollins wrote: | There is an inverse relationship between the age of a | futurist and the amount of time they think it will take for | their predictions to become true. | | In other words, people making these sort of predictions about | the future are biased towards believing they'll be alive to | benefit from it. | gwern wrote: | > There is an inverse relationship between the age of a | futurist and the amount of time they think it will take for | their predictions to become true. | | That's not true. The so-called Maes-Garreau law or effect | does not replicate in actual surveys, as opposed to a few | cherrypicked futurist examples. | adamsmith143 wrote: | > There is an inverse relationship between the age of a | futurist and the amount of time they think it will take for | their predictions to become true. | | I think calling Carmack a Futurist is pretty insulting. | MichaelCollins wrote: | Why? Because he also wrote some game engines? | adamsmith143 wrote: | >The "6 or so" breakthroughs sounds about right to me. But I | don't really see the reason for being optimistic about 2030. | It could just as easily be 2050, or 2100, etc. | | Well if you read between the lines of the Gato paper there | may be no more hurdles left and scale is the only boundary | left. | | >Not a recognition that we fundamentally still don't know how | brains work! (or what intelligence is, etc.) | | This is a really bad trope. We don't need to understand the | brain to make an intelligence. Does Evolution understand how | the brain works? Did we solve the Navier Stokes Equations | before building flying planes? No. | nuclearnice1 wrote: | > The "6 or so" breakthroughs sounds about right to me. | | What's your logic? Or his if you know it? | FartyMcFarter wrote: | If you think about big areas of cognition like memory, | planning, exploration, internal rewards, etc., it's | conceivable that a breakthrough in each could lead to | amazing results if they can be combined. | TheDudeMan wrote: | kken wrote: | The interview with Lex Fridman that he was referring to: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I845O57ZSy4&t=14567s | | The entire video is worth viewing, an impressive 5:15h! | Tenoke wrote: | Is that a different Jim Keller? | itisit wrote: | Undoubtedly _the_ Jim Keller. | __d wrote: | It seems unlikely? At least, I _hope_ it 's the ex- | DEC,AMD,SiByte,PASemi,Apple,Tesla,Intel Jim Keller. | haasted wrote: | "AGI"? | [deleted] | echelon wrote: | Artificial General Intelligence. | | Machines as smart and capable of thought as we are and | eventually smarter. | nomel wrote: | > Machines as smart and capable of thought as we are and | eventually smarter. | | This is perhaps an end goal of AGI, but not a definition of | AGI. A relatively dumb AGI is how it will start, but it will | still be an AGI. | ZiiS wrote: | we hope | grzm wrote: | Artificial General Intelligence. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligenc... | [deleted] | [deleted] | [deleted] | jprd wrote: | Adjusted Gross Income, because Artificial General Intelligence | from a Corporation is nightmare fuel. | aantix wrote: | I thought he just said on the Lex Fridman show he was down to one | day a week, working on AGI? | Trasmatta wrote: | He said he's down to one day a week on VR at Meta. The rest of | his time is AI. | djitz wrote: | The inverse, and he also mentioned that he had just finished | signing a deal for the VC money just before the interview | jedberg wrote: | I hope he gets a good domain name and some good SEO, because | there are a bunch of consulting companies with the name Keen | Technologies, and some of them don't look super reputable. | m463 wrote: | AGI - Artificial General Intelligence | | (also Adjusted Gross Income) | newaccount2021 wrote: | not sure why people are getting bent out of shape, $20 million is | a modest raise, and he strikes me as the type to spend it wisely | wcerfgba wrote: | Does anyone else subscribe to the idea that AGI is | impossible/unlikely without 'embodied cognition', i.e. we cannot | create a human-like 'intelligence' unless it has a similar | embodiment to us, able to move around a physical environment with | it's own limbs, sense of touch, sight, etc. ? Any arguments | against the necessity of this? I feel like any AGI developed in | silico without freedom of movement will be fundamentally | incomprehensible to us as embodied humans. | ml_basics wrote: | I don't think it is necessary - though all forms of | intelligence we're aware of have bodies, that's just a fact | about the hardware we run on. | | It seems plausible to me that we could create forms of | intelligence that only run on a computer and have no bodies. I | agree that we might find it difficult to recognize them as | intelligent though because we're so conditioned to thinking of | intelligence as embodied. | | An interesting thought experiment: suppose we create | intelligences that are highly connected to one another and the | whole internet through fast high bandwidth connections, and | have effectively infinite memory. Would such intelligences | think they were handicapped compared to us because they leak | physical bodies? I'm not so sure! | oefnak wrote: | When you're sitting behind your computer for a while, you can | forget it is there, and just 'live' in the internet, right? | That's not so big a difference maybe, if you can abstract the | medium away that feeds you the information. | ericb wrote: | With VR, you can get the sight and physical environment you | mention. That seems like, at minimum, proof that in-silico | intelligence won't be blocked by _that_ requirement. | | I do fully agree that any intelligence may not be human-like, | though. In fact, I imagine it would seem very cold, | calculating, amoral, and manipulative. Our prohibition against | that type of behavior depends on a social evolution it won't | have experienced. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | > With VR, you can get the sight and physical environment you | mention | | "physical environment" ? VR lets you operate on and get | sensory input based on a fairly significantly degraded | version of physical reality. | adamsmith143 wrote: | >Does anyone else subscribe to the idea that AGI is | impossible/unlikely without 'embodied cognition', i.e. we | cannot create a human-like 'intelligence' | | Seems like you are confusing Consciousness with Intelligence? | It's completely plausible that we will create a system with | Intelligence that far outstrips ours while being completely un- | Conscious. | | >I feel like any AGI developed in silico without freedom of | movement will be fundamentally incomprehensible to us as | embodied humans. | | An AGI will be defacto incomprehensible to Humans. Being | developed in Silicon will have little bearing on that fact. | [deleted] | makeitdouble wrote: | I see that as two separate goals. | | One is to build something inteligent (an AGI), and the other is | something human like. Intuitively we could hit the AGI goal | first and aim for human like after that if we feel like it. | | In the past, human like inteligent seemed more approachable for | I think mostly emotional reasons, but for our current | trajectory if we get anything inteligent we'd still have reach | a huge milestone IMO. | Ekaros wrote: | Human like is actually very good question. It doesn't even come | to embodiment, but in general how it would think and act. Lot | of how we do is due to cultural, language, training and | education. | | For example, which language would it "think" in? English? Some | other? Something it's own? How would it formulate things? Based | on what philosophical framework or similar? What about math? | General reasoning? Then cultural norms and communication? | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | The argument is that every question in your post is a red- | herring. That is, humans don't actually function in the way | that your questions suggest, even if they have the | "experience" of doing so. | Jack000 wrote: | I'm very optimistic for near-term AGI (10 years or less). Even | just a few years ago most in the field would have said that it's | an "unknown unknown", we didn't have the theory or the models, | there was no path forward and so it was impossible to predict. | | Now we have a fairly concrete idea of what a potential AGI might | look like - an RL agent that uses a large transformer. | | The issue is that unlike supervised training you need to simulate | the environment along with the agent, so this requires a | magnitude more compute compared to LLMs. That's why I think it | will still be large corporate labs that will make the most | progress in this field. | alexashka wrote: | Are you optimistic for how this AGI will _get used_? | adamsmith143 wrote: | Scaling is all you need. | | But Carmack has a very serious problem in his thinking because | he thinks fast take off scenarios are impossible or vanishingly | unlikely. He may well be actively helping to secure our demise | with this work. | Voloskaya wrote: | > we didn't have the theory or the models, there was no path | forward and so it was impossible to predict. Now we have a | fairly concrete idea of what a potential AGI might look like - | an RL agent that uses a large transformer. | | Who is we exactly? As someone working in AI research I know no | one that would agree with this statement, so im quite puzzled | by that statement. | version_five wrote: | > Who is we exactly? | | When I read these kind of threads, I believe it's | "enthusiast" laypeople who follow the headlines but don't | actually have a deep understanding of the tech. | | Of course there are the promoters who are raising money and | need to frame each advance in the most optimistic light. I | don't see anything wrong with that, it just means that there | will be a group of techie but not research literate folks who | almost necessarily become the promoters and talk about how | such and such headline means that a big advance is right | around the corner. That is what I believe we're seeing here. | Isinlor wrote: | Nando de Freitas Research Director at @DeepMind. CIFAR. | Previously Prof @UBC & @UniofOxford. made a lot of headlines: | | https://twitter.com/NandoDF/status/1525397036325019649 | | Someone's opinion article. My opinion: It's all about scale | now! The Game is Over! It's about making these models bigger, | safer, compute efficient, faster at sampling, smarter memory, | more modalities, INNOVATIVE DATA, on/offline, ... 1/N | | Solving these scaling challenges is what will deliver AGI. | Research focused on these problems, eg S4 for greater memory, | is needed. Philosophy about symbols isn't. Symbols are tools | in the world and big nets have no issue creating them and | manipulating them 2/n | | https://twitter.com/NandoDF/status/1525397036325019649 | Voloskaya wrote: | And I agree with Nando's view, but he is not saying we can | just take a transformer model, scale it 10T parameters and | get AGI. He is only saying that trying to reach AGI with a | << smarter >> algorithm is hopeless, what matters is scale, | similar to Sutton'a bitter lesson. But we still need to | work on getting systems that scale better, that are more | compute efficient etc. And no one knows how far we have to | scale. So saying AGI will just be << transformer + RL >> to | me seems ridiculous. Many more breakthroughs are needed. | ml_basics wrote: | I work in AI and would roughly agree with it to first order. | | For me the key breakthrough has been seeing how large | transformers trained with big datasets have shown incredible | performance in completely different data modalities (text, | image, and probably soon others too). | | This was absolutely not expected by most researchers 5 years | ago. | jmyeet wrote: | I'm not. | | My evidence? OpenWorm [1]. OpenWorm is an effort to model the | behaviour of a worm that has 302 mapped neurons. 302. Efforts | so far have fallen way short of the mark. | | How many neurons does a human brain have? 86 billion (according | to Google). | | I've seen other estimates that the computational power of the | brain is roughly estimated as 10^15 operations per second. I | suspect that's on the low end. We can't even really get that | level of computation in one place for practical reasons (ie | interconnects). | | Neural structure changes. The neurons themselves change | internally. | | I still think AGI is very far off. | joe_the_user wrote: | Even Yann LeCun, who arguably knows a lot about RL agents, | isn't proposing just "an RL agent that uses a large | transformer" but something more multi-part [1]. Current | approaches are getting better but I don't think that's the same | as approaching AGI. | | [1] https://venturebeat.com/business/yann-lecuns-vision-for- | crea... | KhoomeiK wrote: | > Now we have a fairly concrete idea of what a potential AGI | might look like - an RL agent that uses a large transformer. | | People have thought Deep RL would lead to AGI since practically | the beginning of the deep learning revolution, and likely | significantly before. It's the most intuitive approach by a | longshot (even depicted in movies as agents receiving | positive/negative reinforcement from their environment), but | that doesn't mean it's the best. RL still faces _huge_ | struggles with compute efficiency and it isn 't immediately | clear that current RL algorithms will neatly scale with data & | parameter count. | gwern wrote: | > it isn't immediately clear that current RL algorithms will | neatly scale with data & parameter count | | It may not be immediately clear, but it is nevertheless | unfortunately clear from RL papers which provide adequate | sample-size or compute ranges that RL appears to follow | scaling laws (just like everywhere else anyone bothers to | test). Yeah, they just get better the same way that regular | ol' self-supervised or supervised Transformers do. Sorry if | you were counting on 'RL doesn't work' for safety or | anything. | | If you don't believe the basic existence proofs of things | like OA5 or AlphaStar, which work only because things like | larger batch sizes or more diverse agent populations | magically make notoriously-unreliable archs work, you can | look at Jones's beautiful AlphaZero scaling laws (plural) | work https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.03113 , or browse through | relevant papers https://www.reddit.com/r/mlscaling/search?q=f | lair%3ARL&restr... | https://www.gwern.net/notes/Scaling#ziegler-et-al-2019-paper | Or GPT-f. Then you have stuff like Gato continuing to show | scaling even in the Decision Transformer framework. Or | consider instances of plugging pretrained models _into_ RL | agents, like SayCan-PaLM most recently. | pixelpoet wrote: | While we have the mighty gwern on the line: do you believe | we'll have AGI in <= 10 years? | trention wrote: | That scaling will eventually hit a wall. What was it about | nerds and S-curves? | stefan_ wrote: | They have? That's the approach they are using? Because that | doesn't mesh well with practical reality. Where AGI use Deep | RL, it's to improve on vision tasks like object | classification, none of them are making any driving decisions | - that seems to remain the domain of I guess you could call | it _discrete logic_. | robotresearcher wrote: | Here's a survey paper from this year on Deep RL for | autonomous driving. | | https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9351818 | | B. R. Kiran et al., "Deep Reinforcement Learning for | Autonomous Driving: A Survey," in IEEE Transactions on | Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. | 4909-4926, June 2022, doi: 10.1109/TITS.2021.3054625. | | I haven't read the paper, so this is not a reading | recommendation. Just posting as evidence that there is work | in the area. | Isinlor wrote: | Have you heard about EfficientZero? This is the first | algorithm that achieved super-human performance on Atari 100k | actions benchmark. EfficientZero's performance is also close | to DQN's performance at 200 million frames while we consume | 500 times less data. | | DQN was published in 2013, EfficientZero in 2021. That's 8 | years with 500 times improvement. | | So data efficiency was doubling roughly every year for the | past 8 years. | | Side note: EfficientZero I think still may not be super-human | on games like Montezuma's Revenge. | | https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.00210 | | Reinforcement learning has achieved great success in many | applications. However, sample efficiency remains a key | challenge, with prominent methods requiring millions (or even | billions) of environment steps to train. Recently, there has | been significant progress in sample efficient image-based RL | algorithms; however, consistent human-level performance on | the Atari game benchmark remains an elusive goal. We propose | a sample efficient model-based visual RL algorithm built on | MuZero, which we name EfficientZero. Our method achieves | 194.3% mean human performance and 109.0% median performance | on the Atari 100k benchmark with only two hours of real-time | game experience and outperforms the state SAC in some tasks | on the DMControl 100k benchmark. This is the first time an | algorithm achieves super-human performance on Atari games | with such little data. EfficientZero's performance is also | close to DQN's performance at 200 million frames while we | consume 500 times less data. EfficientZero's low sample | complexity and high performance can bring RL closer to real- | world applicability. We implement our algorithm in an easy- | to-understand manner and it is available at this https URL. | We hope it will accelerate the research of MCTS-based RL | algorithms in the wider community. | kromem wrote: | There's a hardware component here too though. | | I think hybrid photonic AI chips handling some of the workload | are supposed to hit in 2025 at the latest, and some of the | research on gains is very promising. | | So we may see timelines continue to accelerate as broader | market shifts occur outside just software and models. | heavenlyblue wrote: | Which research? | fatherzine wrote: | Not sure if "optimistic" is the proper word here. Perhaps | "scared senseless in the end-of-mankind kind of way" is more | appropriate? | keerthiko wrote: | At least we have lots of very complex simulated or pseudo- | simulated environments already -- throw your AGI agent into a | sandbox mode game of GTA6, or like OpenAI and DeepMind already | did, with DOTA2 and StarCraft II (with non-G-AIs). They have a | vast almost-analog simulation space to figure out and interact | with (including identifying or coming up with a goal). | | So while it is significant compute overhead, it at least | doesn't have to be development overhead, and can often be CPU | bound (headless games) while the AI learning compute can be GPU | bound. | paxys wrote: | I sure hope no one is planning to unleash their AGI in the | real world after having it spend many (virtual) lifetimes | playing GTA. | keerthiko wrote: | IMO, your take in the broader sense is an extremely | profound and important point for AGI ethics. While GTA is | seemingly extreme, I think that's going to be a problem no | matter what simulation space we fabricate for training AGI | agents -- any simulation environment will encourage various | behaviors by the biases encoded by the simulation's | selectively enforced rules (because someone has to decide | what rules the simulation implements...). An advanced | intelligence will take learnings and interpretations of | those rules beyond what humans would come up with. | | If we can' make an AGI that we feel ok letting run amok in | the world after living through a lot of GTA (by somehow | being able to rapidly + intelligently reprioritize and | adjust rules from multiple simulation/real environments? | not sure), we probably shouldn't let that core AGI loose no | matter what simulation(s) it was "raised on". | paxys wrote: | We will have something that we ourselves define to be AGI, | sure, but then it's easy to hit any goal that way. Is that | machine really intelligent? What does that word even mean? Can | it think for itself? Is it sentient? | | Similar to AI, AGI is going to be a new industry buzzword that | you can throw at anything and mean nothing. | SketchySeaBeast wrote: | You're making me think of the recent "Hoverboards". | lagrange77 wrote: | Right, certain companies will definitely have a big | bullshit party about the term "AGI". | lagrange77 wrote: | From the point when an AGI is capable of constructing a | slightly better version of itself and has the urge to do so, | everything can happen very fast. | treesprite82 wrote: | > capable of constructing a slightly better version of | itself | | With just self-improvement I think you hit diminishing | returns, rather than an exponential explosion. | | Say on the first pass it cleans up a bunch of low-hanging | inefficiencies and improves itself 30%. Then on the second | pass it has slightly more capacity to think with, but it | also already did everything that was possible with the | first 100% capacity - maybe it squeezes out another 5% or | so improvement of itself. | | Similar is already the case with chip design. Algorithms to | design chips can then be ran on those improved chips, but | this on its own doesn't give exponential growth. | | To get around diminishing returns there has to be progress | on many fronts. That'd mean negotiating DRC mining | contracts, expediting construction of chip production | factories, making breakthroughs in nanophysics, etc. | | We probably will increasingly rely on AI for optimizing | tasks like those and it'll contribute heavily to continued | technological progress, but I don't personally see any | specific turning point or runaway reaction stemming from | just a self-improving AGI. | jollybean wrote: | ? What does 'replication' and 'urge' have to do with | anything? | | That's arbitrary anthropomorphizing the concept of | intelligence. | | And FYI we can already write software that can 'replicate' | and has the 'urge' to do so very trivially. | adastra22 wrote: | Can it? There aren't that many overhangs to exploit. | dudouble wrote: | Thank you for this comment. I'd never really considered | this and it is blowing my mind. | lagrange77 wrote: | I'm no expert, take it with a grain of salt :) | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | > "has the urge" | | it's quite a leap to think or even imagine that the class | of systems generally being spoken of here are usefully | described as "having urges" | mrshadowgoose wrote: | People don't really consider the immense risk of "speed | superintelligences" as a very quick and relatively easy | follow-on step to the development of AGI. | | Once developed, one solely needs to turn up the execution | rate of an AGI, which would result in superhuman | performance on most practical and economically meaningful | metrics. | | Imagine if for every real day that passed, one experienced | 100 days of subjective time. Would that person be able to | eclipse most of their peers in terms of intellectual | output? Of course they would. In essence, that's what a | speed superintelligence would be. | | When most people think of AI outperforming humans, they | tend to think of "quality superintelligences", AIs that can | just "think better" than any human. That's likely to be a | harder problem. But we don't even need quality | superintelligences to utterly disrupt society as we know | it. | | We really need to stop arguing about time scales for the | arrival of AGI, and start societal planning for its arrival | whenever that happens. We likely already have the | computational capacity for AGI, and have just not figured | out the correct way to coordinate it. The human brain uses | about 20 watts to do its thing, and humanity has gigawatts | of computational capacity. Sure, the human brain should be | considered to be "special purpose hardware" that | dramatically reduces energy requirements for cognition. By | a factor of more than 10^9 though? That seems unlikely. | colinmhayes wrote: | There's certainly the philosophy side of AGI, but there's | also the practical side. Does the Chinese room understand | Chinese? If your goal is just to create a room that passes | Chinese Turing tests that doesn't matter. | MichaelCollins wrote: | The philosophy side of the matter seems meaningless, it | interrogates the meaning of language, not the capabilities | of technology. When people ask _" Could machines think?"_ | the question isn't really about machines, it's about | precisely what we mean by the word 'think'. | | Can a submarine swim? Who cares! What's important is that a | submarine can do what a submarine does. Whether or not the | action of a submarine fits the meaning of the word 'swim' | should be irrelevant to anybody except poets. | jvanderbot wrote: | This keeps coming up, and there's no answer, because | unfortunately it appears we are not really sentient, | thinking, intelligent minds either. We'll find AGI and | complain that it's not good enough until we lower the bar | sufficiently as we discover more about our own minds. | ryanSrich wrote: | > AGI | | Idk what prompted you to say this, but is there a version of | AGI that isn't "real" AGI? I don't know how anyone could fake | it. I think marketing departments might say whatever they | want, but I don't see any true engineers falling for | something masquerading as AGI. | | If someone builds a machine that can unequivocally learn on | it's own, replicate itself, and eventually solve ever more | complex problems that humans couldn't even hope to solve, | then we have AGI. Anything less than that is just a computer | program. | jollybean wrote: | This is upside down. | | First - we already have software that can unequivocally do | the things you just highlighted. | | Learn? Check. | | Replicate? Trival. But what does that have to do with AGI? | | Solve Problems Humans Cannot. Check. | | So we already have 'AGI' and it's a simple computer | program. | | Thinking about 'AGI' as a discrete, autonomous system makes | no sense. | | We will achieve highly intelligent systems with distributed | systems decades before we have some 'individual neural net | on a chip' that feels human like. | | And when we do make it, where do we draw the line on it? Is | a 'process' running a specific bit of software an 'AI'? | | What if the AI depends on a myriad of micro-services in | order to function. And those micro-services are shared? | | Where is the 'Unit AI'? | | The notion of an autonmous AI, like a unit of software on | some specific hardware distinct from other components | actually makes little sense. | | Emergent AI systems will start to develop out of our | current systems long before 'autonomic' AI. In fact, | there's no reason at all to even develop 'autonomic AI'. We | do it because we want to model it after our own existence. | ryanSrich wrote: | > Learn? Check. | | What software can learn on its own without any assistance | from a huamn? I've not heard of anything like this. | | > Replicate? Trival. But what does that have to do with | AGI? | | Like humans, an AGI should be able to replicate. Similar | to a von neumann probe. | | > Solve Problems Humans Cannot. Check. | | What unthinkable problem has an AI solved? Is something | capable of solving something so grandiose we almost can't | even define the problem yet? | est31 wrote: | > Replicate? Trival. But what does that have to do with | AGI? | | If you see it as copying an existing model to another | computer, yes it is trivial. But an AGI trying to | replicate itself in the real world has to also make those | computers. | | Making modern computer chips is one of the most non- | trivial things that humans do. They require fabs that | cost billions, with all sorts of chemicals inside, and | extreme requirements on the inside environment. Very hard | to build, very easy to disable them via an attack. | MichaelCollins wrote: | The way to fake it would be to conceal the details of the | AGI as proprietary trade secrets, when the real secret is | the human hidden behind the curtain. | ryanSrich wrote: | Real AGI would solve this. It wouldn't allow itself to be | concealed. Or rather, it would be its own decision. A | company couldn't control real AGI. | danielheath wrote: | What's it going to do, break out of its own simulation? | adamsmith143 wrote: | > Nope. An atrificial general intelligence that was | working like a 2x slower human would be both useful and | easy to control. | | That's exactly what it will do. Hell we even have human | programmers thinking about how to hack our own | simulation. | | A comment a few lines down thinks that an AGI thinking 2x | slower than a human would be easy to control. Let's be | honest, hell slow the thing down to 10x. You really think | it still won't be able to outthink you? Chess | Grandmasters routinely play blindfolded against dozens of | people at once and you think an AGI that could be to | Humans as Humans are to Chimps or realistically to Ants | will be hindered by a simple slowdown in thinking? | ryanSrich wrote: | Real AGI would adapt and fool a human into letting it | out. Or escaping through some other means. That's the | entire issue with AGI. Once it can learn on its own | there's no way to control it. Building in fail safes | wouldn't work on true AGI, as the AGI can learn 1000x | faster than us, and would free itself. This is why real | AGI is likely very far away, and anything calling itself | AGI without the ability to learn and adapt at an | exponential rate is just a computer program. | pawelmurias wrote: | Nope. An atrificial general intelligence that was working | like a 2x slower human would be both useful and easy to | control. | Jensson wrote: | How would you ensure nobody copies it to an USB stick and | then puts it on a public torrent, making it multiply to | the entire world? AGI facilities would need extremely | tight security to avoid this. | | The AGI doesn't even need to convince humans to do this, | humans would do this anyway. | konschubert wrote: | Sentience is ill-defined and therefore doesn't exist. | lagrange77 wrote: | > Now we have a fairly concrete idea of what a potential AGI | might look like - an RL agent that uses a large transformer. | | Any resources on that? | | I have a feeling that RL might play a big role in the first | AGI, too, but why transformers in particular? | moultano wrote: | Transformers have gradually taken over in every other ML | domain. | lagrange77 wrote: | Okay, but do those ML domains help with AGI? | gmadsen wrote: | they don't seem to have a theoretical upper limit. more data | and more parameters seem to just keep making it more | advanced. Even in ways that weren't predicted or understood. | the difference between a language model that can explain a | novel joke and one that can't is purely scale. So the thought | is with enough scale, you eventually hit AGI | Isinlor wrote: | See: https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.06175 | | A Generalist Agent | | Inspired by progress in large-scale language modeling, we | apply a similar approach towards building a single generalist | agent beyond the realm of text outputs. The agent, which we | refer to as Gato, works as a multi-modal, multi-task, multi- | embodiment generalist policy. The same network with the same | weights can play Atari, caption images, chat, stack blocks | with a real robot arm and much more, deciding based on its | context whether to output text, joint torques, button | presses, or other tokens. In this report we describe the | model and the data, and document the current capabilities of | Gato. | | Gato is a 1 to 2 billion parameters model due to latency | considerations in real time physical robots usage. So for | today standards of 500 billion parameters dense models Gato | is tiny. Additionally Gato is trained on data produced by | other RL agents. It did not do the exploration fully itself. | | Demis Hassabis say that DeepMind is currently working on Gato | v2. | Jack000 wrote: | Everything Deepmind published at this year's ICML would be a | good start. | | Transformers (or rather the QKV attention mechanism) has | taken over ML research at this point, it just scales and | works in places it really shouldn't. Eg. you'd think convnets | would make more sense for vision because of its translation | invariance, but ViT works better even without this inductive | bias. | | Even in things like diffusion models the attention layers are | crucial to making the model work. | 8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote: | I was surprised by how bullish he is about this. At least a few | years ago the experts in the field didn't see AGI anywhere near | us for at least a few decades, and all of the bulls were | physicists, philosophers or Deepak-Chopra-for-the-TED-crowd | bullshit artists who have never written a line of code in their | lives, mostly milking that conference and podcast dollar, | preaching Skynet-flavored apocalypse or rapture. | | To see Carmack go all in on this actually makes me feel like | the promise has serious legs. The guy is an engineer's | engineer, hardly a speculator, or in it for the quick | provocative hot take. He clearly thinks this is possible with | the existing tools and the near future projected iterations of | the technology. Hard to believe this is actually happening, but | with his brand name on it, this might just be the case. | | What an amazing time to be alive. | intelVISA wrote: | if Carmack's in I'm in. Has he ever been drastically wrong? | grimgrin wrote: | No one can argue he doesn't know how to summon demons | tmpz22 wrote: | When he went to go work on VR at Facebook? | grimgrin wrote: | Wrong in the moral sense? | | He's still there though, right? | GaylordTuring wrote: | What was wrong about that? | enneff wrote: | The jury is still out on VR and Meta but it hardly seems | promising. | ytdytvhxgydvhh wrote: | Sure (According to | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Carmack ): | | > During his time at id Software, a medium pepperoni pizza | would arrive for Carmack from Domino's Pizza almost every | day, carried by the same delivery person for more than 15 | years. | | C'mon man, Domino's?! | ianceicys wrote: | Artificial general intelligence (AGI) -- in other words, systems | that could successfully perform any intellectual task that a | human can. | | Not in my lifetime, not in this millennium. Possibly in the year | 2,300. | | Weird way to blow $20 million. | willio58 wrote: | It's not blowing 20 million if it results in meaningful | progress in this area. We have something like 2700 billionaires | on this planet. This isn't even a drop in the bucket for | someone like that interested in furthering this research. | | AGI could quite literally shift any job to automation. This is | human-experience changing stuff. | blibble wrote: | > This is human-experience changing stuff. | | that's one way of putting it | | it will remove the need for the vast majority of the | population, which will end extremely badly | gizajob wrote: | But by the same token, there's no _need_ for billions of | humans now. AGI isn 't really going to change that except | for making work even more superfluous than it already is. | Jensson wrote: | Currently the life of leaders gets better the more people | they can control, since it creates a larger tax base. | That means leaders tries to encourage population | increase, they want more immigration, encourages people | to multiply and sees population reduction as harmful. | | With AGI that is no longer true, they can just replace | most people with computers and automated combat drones | while they keep a small number of personal servants to | look after them. Currently most jobs either is there to | support other humans or can be replaced by a computer, | remove the need for humans and all of those jobs just | disappear and leaders no longer care about having lots of | people around. | omg_stoppit wrote: | And as societies progress, they must either realize why | basic necessities like Universal Basic Income exist, or | just allow for large swathes of their population to die | off. | ge96 wrote: | I wonder about this, if you had great/true automation, free | energy from the sun, is there any need to do anything. As | in value of money. | SketchySeaBeast wrote: | But who would own the automatons and power generators, | and what would be their impetus to share their power? | Unless the means of (energy) production moved out of the | hands of the few it seems like it wouldn't make the rest | of our lives any more idyllic. | ge96 wrote: | Yeah it's true. When I donate/help I always feel this | "mine". I believe in merit, you know, effort in effort | out. It's nice to help people but there are also too | many... and bad actors. So idk if it'll ever happen or | just for select few anyway. | | I almost regret being at this phase of life where we are | aware of what's possible but we most likely not see it in | our lifetime. This AGI talk, colonization of space, | etc... but can strive towards it/have fun trying in the | meantime. | Arcuru wrote: | If you want to look into it more, that situation is | usually called a post-scarcity economy[1]. It's talked | about and depicted in a few fictionalized places, | including Star Trek. | | [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scarcity_economy | blibble wrote: | in Star Trek: the Federation has unlimited energy and the | ability to replicate most forms of matter | | but human(oid) intelligence is still scarce, and they | don't have AGI (other than Data) | | there is however a society that has no need for humanoid | intelligence, and that's the Dominion | | and I suspect that is what our society would turn into if | AGI is invented (and not the Federation) | systemvoltage wrote: | Weestern civilization would be dead if it weren't for eccentric | people like this. Let them blow $20M, there are worse ways. | paxys wrote: | $20 million is pretty much nothing when split among a handful | of billionaires and the biggest VC firm in the world. | Regardless of the project itself it is worth it to spend that | money just to have Carmack's name attached to it and buy some | future goodwill. | Ekaros wrote: | Never underestimate the greater fool theory. Specially in | current tech landscape. It just needs him to produce some | results and you could end up selling company to FAANG or some | big fund for profit. | ggm wrote: | He'll make it back on small increments with high value. If he | can shave 30% LOC on a vision system for small BoM in some | context like self driving cars, 10x stake is coming his way. | | Basically, they could completely fail to advance AGI (and I | think this is what will happen btw, like you) and make | gigabucks. | hervature wrote: | 2,300 is in this millennium? | [deleted] | Ekaros wrote: | 20 million doesn't actually sound in anyway stupid investment | with name like Carmack involved. Just have the company produce | something and then flip it to next idiot... | jacquesm wrote: | The year 2300 is definitely in this millennium. | dmoy wrote: | Only if you don't count the second dark age of 1200 years | that fit between 2093 and 2094 | TrainedMonkey wrote: | Do you have a rationale for that? I get a feeling progress in | both machine learning and understanding biological intelligence | is fairly rapid and has been accelerating. I believe two | primary contributing factors are cheaper compute and vast | amount of investment poured into machine learning, see | https://venturebeat.com/ai/report-ai-investments-see-largest... | | Now, the question of whether we are going to have AGI is | incredibly broad. So I am going to split it into two smaller | ones: - Are we going to have enough compute by year X to | implement AGI. Note that we are not talking about super | intelligence or singularity here. This AGI might be below human | intelligence and incredibly uneconomical to run. - Assuming we | have enough compute, will we a way to get AGI working. | | The compute advancements scale with new Chip Fabs linearly and | tech node improvements exponentially. I think it is reasonable | for compute to get cheaper and more accessible throughout at | least 2030. I expect this because TSMC is starting 3nm node | production, Intel is decoupling fabing and chip design (aka | TSMC model), and the strategic investments into into chap | manufacturing driven by supply chain disruptions. See | https://www.tomshardware.com/news/tsmc-initiates-3nm-chips-p... | | How much compute do we need? This is hard to estimate, but | amount of human connections in human brain is estimated at 100 | trillion, that is 1e14. Current largest model has 530B | parameters, that is 5.3e11: | https://developer.nvidia.com/blog/using-deepspeed-and-megatr... | . That is factor of 500 or 9 doublings off. To get there by | 2040 we would need a doubling every 2 years. This is slower | that recent progress, but past performance does not predict | future results. Still, I believe getting models with 1e14 | parameters by 2040 is possible for tech giants. I believe it is | likely that a model with 1e14 parameters is sufficient for AGI | if we know how structure and train it. | | Will we know how to structure and train it? I think is mostly | driven by investment into the AI field. More money means more | people and given the venture beat link above the investment | seems to be accelerating. A lot of that investment will be | unprofitable, but we are not looking to make a profit - we are | looking for breakthroughs and larger model sizes. Self-driving, | stock trading, and voice controls are machine learning | applications which are currently deployed in the real world. At | the very least it is reasonable to expect continuous investment | to improve those applications. | | Based on the above I believe we would need to mess things up | royally to not get AGI by 2100. Remember this could be below | human and super uneconomical AGI. I am rather optimistic, so my | personal prediction is that we have 50% chance to get AGI by | 2040 and 5-10% chance of getting there by 2030. | makeee wrote: | Doesn't imply _any_ task, just a wide variety of tasks. 10 | years at most. | arkitaip wrote: | By definition it has to be any task otherwise it wouldn't be | general. What tasks wouldn't an AGI be able to perform and | still be an AGI? | dymk wrote: | Reliably trick a humans into thinking it's a human. That's | it. | mod wrote: | I believe that's the Turing Test, not necessarily a | definition (or requirement) for AGI. | nomel wrote: | It sounds like you may be demanding more from AGI that we | do of humans. AGI is a mushy concept, not a hard | requirement. "Any task" is definitely not required for a | low functioning AGI, just as it's not a requirement for a | low functioning human, who still easily fits the definition | of an intelligent being. | yeellow wrote: | For each human being having GI there are many tasks that | person won't be able to perform. For example proving math | theorems, doing research in physics, writing a poem, etc. | Specyfic AGI could have its limitations as well. | jtwaleson wrote: | My takeaway from the Lex Fridman interview is of someone | that's machine-like in his approach. AGI suddenly seemed | simpler and within reach. Skipping consciousness and qualia. | It's inhumane, but machine-like and effective. Curious what | will become of it. | bsenftner wrote: | I believe AGI is the threshold where generalized artificial | comprehension is achieved and the model can _understand_ any | task. Once the understanding part is composable the building | portion is following the understanding. I 'm using | _understanding_ rather than _model_ because our models we | make today are not these kinds of _comprehensions_ , | _understandings_ are more intelligent. | ianceicys wrote: | Then it's NOT generalized. ANY means ANY. | dymk wrote: | Can you do any task asked of you, which could be asked of a | human being? ANY task. | ianceicys wrote: | I may not be able to ANY task sufficiently well (ex | Calculus, Poetry, Emotion), but by the very definition of | being a Human I can do *any* Human task. | dymk wrote: | With specific training, sure. Why are we holding an AI to | a higher standard? | kmnc wrote: | If the task is possible... then why not? | dymk wrote: | What if you don't know how to complete the task? | [deleted] | freediver wrote: | You are probably right, but if anyone can make a dent Carmak is | the person. | vlunkr wrote: | Do game dev skills transfer to AGI? I know he's a smart guy, | but I don't think that's a given. | zaptrem wrote: | He's not just a game dev, he is one of the most legendary | graphics programmers (and just programmers) alive. Similar | to how GPUs transferred well from gaming to ML, it seems | like much of the math and parallel/efficiency-focused | thinking of graphics programing is useful in ML. | [deleted] | 5d8767c68926 wrote: | If he succeeds, his skillet becomes the Platonic ideal of | an AGI developer. | mda wrote: | skillet? well I for one welcome our new kitchen utensil | overlords. | gizajob wrote: | Worked for Demis Hassabis | gfodor wrote: | You have some catching up to do. Consensus is dropping to this | lifetime for sure, if not this decade. | efficax wrote: | what consensus? i think most researchers remain skeptical | semi-extrinsic wrote: | Yeah, I don't think there is even any agreement about what | criteria a "minimal AGI" would need to meet. If we can't | even define what the thing is, saying we'll have it within | ten years is pure hubris. | Isinlor wrote: | The survey [0], fielded in late 2019 (before GPT-3, | Chinchilla, Flamingo, PaLM, Codex, Dall-E, Minerva etc.), | elicited forecasts for near-term AI development milestones | and high- or human-level machine intelligence, defined as | when machines are able to accomplish every or almost every | task humans are able to do currently. They sample 296 | researchers who presented at two important AI/ML | conferences ICML and NeurIPS. Results from their 2019 | survey show that, in aggregate, AI/ML researchers surveyed | placed a 50% likelihood of human-level machine intelligence | being achieved by 2060. The results show researchers newly | contacted in 2019 expressed similar beliefs about the | progress of advanced AI as respondents in the Grace et al. | (2018) survey. | | [0] https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.04132 | bpodgursky wrote: | Uh... no. Most researchers have moved their timelines to | somewhere between 2030 and 2040. | | You can argue they're wrong, but there is absolutely a | general consensus that AGI is going to be this generation. | xen2xen1 wrote: | And consensus is never wrong! | SketchySeaBeast wrote: | Especially assertions of consensus provided without | evidence of said consensus. | gizajob wrote: | AGI has been 20-30 years away for some 70 years now... | Isinlor wrote: | Kurzweil in 2002 made $20,000 bet that a difficult, well | defined 2h version of Turing test will by passed by 2029. | | https://longbets.org/1/ | | Given development in language models in the last 2 years | he may have a decent chance at winning that bet. | | People give him 65% chance [0] and by now there are only | 7 years left. | | [0] https://www.metaculus.com/questions/3648/computer- | passes-tur... | _delirium wrote: | Who do you have in mind? In my corner of AI it's pretty | uncommon for researchers to even predict "timelines". | Predictions have a bad track record in the field and most | researchers know it, so don't like to go on record making | them. The only prominent AI researcher I know who has | made a bunch of predictions with dates is Rodney Brooks | [1], and he puts even dog-level general intelligence as | "not earlier than 2048". I imagine folks like LeCun or | Hinton are more optimistic, but as far as I'm aware they | haven't wanted to make specific predictions with dates | like that (and LeCun doesn't like the term "AGI", because | he doesn't think "general intelligence" exists even for | humans). | | [1] https://rodneybrooks.com/my-dated-predictions/ | TaupeRanger wrote: | Sure...just like there was during the last episode of AI | hype a generation ago. | diputsmonro wrote: | A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they | never expect to sit in. Not everything requires an immediate | profit incentive to be a good idea. | tengbretson wrote: | A society does not grow great when an old man collects $20 | million dollars for the fruit of a tree that he has no | capability of planting in the first place. | icelancer wrote: | So sure are you that Carmack can't make inroads here, I | wonder where you get the confidence from? | ZephyrBlu wrote: | If I'm remembering right, Carmack believes AGI will be a thing | by 2030. He said this in his recent interview with Lex Fridman. | nomel wrote: | From what I remember, his definition of AGI didn't include an | average IQ, which it shouldn't. | fancy_pantser wrote: | It's a long interview, here's just the bit focused on AGI: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLi83prR5fg | mupuff1234 wrote: | But I think something of the level of a 6 year old, not so | much a super being. | O__________O wrote: | Recent Carmack YouTube interview with him saying the code for AGI | will be simple: | | https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xLi83prR5fg | nomel wrote: | > saying the code for AGI will be simple | | To be fair, it will most likely be some python imports, for the | most of it, with complex abstractions tied together in | relatively simple ways. Just look at most ML notebooks, where | "simple" code can easily mean "massive complexity, burning MW | of power, distributed across thousands of computers". | O__________O wrote: | No, not what he means, he means code will be simple enough | that a single person would be able to write it, if then knew | what to write and will bootstrap itself into existence for | that simple code and vast amounts of external resources | viable via humans, data, etc. | gwern wrote: | One interesting paper on estimating the complexity of code: | http://www.offconvex.org/2021/04/07/ripvanwinkle/ | cgrealy wrote: | I tend to think Carmack is right in that the "seed" code that | generates an AGI will be relatively small, but I think the | "operating" code will be enormous. | raverbashing wrote: | I'm sure he the one that could write it in only a few blocks of | x86 assembly and off you go | O__________O wrote: | My understanding is that his point was that it's if you knew | what to write, as a single person, it is doable and compared | to anything else at this point in time would have an impact | on humanity like no other. | [deleted] | qbasic_forever wrote: | So is Meta starting to quietly wind down their focus on VR? | Carmack mentions he'll stay as a consultant spending 20% of time | there on it. | kken wrote: | He stepped down from a full time role years ago. I believe the | 20% is no change. | 0xdeadbeefbabe wrote: | Commander Keen Technologies? | Trasmatta wrote: | Interesting to see how he's progressed with this. When he first | announced he was getting into AI it sounded almost like a semi | retirement thing: something that interested him that he could do | for fun and solo, without the expectation that it would go | anywhere. But now he seems truly serious about it. Wonder if he's | started hiring yet. | madrox wrote: | I got the same impression, and maybe it still is. You can still | raise money for a retirement project if the goal of the money | is to hire a staff. VC money isn't solely for young | 20-something founders who want to live their job. | solveit wrote: | I suppose if anyone could raise VC money for a retirement | project it would be Carmack... | rebelos wrote: | Carmack sounds like someone who lives his job, so I don't | think age/life stage is a factor here. | russtrotter wrote: | agreed, Carmack's work ethic, opinions on work and opinions | of how those around him work are legendary! | mhh__ wrote: | Does he have the expertise to pull it off as an individual? | tux1968 wrote: | He mentioned, in his Lex Friedman interview, that accepting | investor money was a way to keep himself serious and motivated. | He feels an obligation to those putting their money in. | mywittyname wrote: | Ah, I was thinking that $20MM doesn't seem like a lot of | money for someone like Carmack. Surely he could have self- | funded a business himself. This explains why he didn't. | [deleted] | yazzku wrote: | "I could write a $20M check myself" | | Every day, all day. Same boat here. | | I went to the bank to ask for a mortgage. They asked for my | financials. "Oh, well, knowing that other people's money is on | the line engenders a greater sense of discipline and | determination." | sytelus wrote: | Recession? What recession? Amazing to see these pre-revenue VC | fundings in 10s and 100s of millions (Flow!). | cgrealy wrote: | I don't understand why you would _want_ AGI. Even ignoring | Terminator-esque worst case scenarios, AGI means humans are no | longer the smartest entities on the planet. | | The idea that we can control something like that is laughable. | stonemetal12 wrote: | Nothing about AGI implies awareness. Something like GPT3 or | DALL-E that can be trained for a new task without being purpose | built for that task is AGI. | dekhn wrote: | what if humanity's role is to create an intelligence that | exceeds it and cannot be controlled? Can humans not desire to | be all watched over by machines of loving grace? | | More seriously, while I don't think it's a moral imperative to | develop AGI, I consider it a desirable research goal in the | same way we do genetic engineering - to understand more about | ourselves, and possibly engineer a future with less human | suffering. | Ekaros wrote: | One could argue that humanity's role this far has been to | create intelligences that exceed it. Namely reproducing | offspring and educating them. | therouwboat wrote: | Didn't we have this same talk when Elon thought AI is | suddenly going to become smart and kill us all? | | Yet my industrial robot at work just gives up if stock | material is few millimeters longer than is should be. | fatherzine wrote: | The toy plane a kid throws in the air in the backyard is | completely harmless. Yet nuke armed strategic bombers also | exist, and the fact that they vaguely resemble a toy plane | doesn't make them as harmless as a toy plane. | stefs wrote: | the climate crisis might kill us all off if not some deus ex | machina (i.e. AGI) comes up with some good solutions fast. | viraptor wrote: | We've already got solutions. We'd only need an Agi to | convince people on power to do something about it. | danbmil99 wrote: | Why is it so important to you that humans be the smartest | beings on the planet? | Guest9081239812 wrote: | Well, we have a track record of killing most other | intelligent species, destroying their habitat, eating them, | using them for experiments, and abusing them for | entertainment. Falling out of the top position could come | with some similar downsides. | spaceman_2020 wrote: | Because we're the smartest beings on the planet. | | And we don't exactly treat creatures dumber than us with all | that much kindness. | HL33tibCe7 wrote: | Because if we aren't, it leaves us liable to be exterminated | or enslaved to suit the goals of the superior beings. | | (and I fundamentally believe that the existence of the human | race is a good thing, and that slavery is bad). | trention wrote: | Because the history of the species on this planet clearly | indicates that the smartest one will brutalize and exploit | all the rest. There are good economic (and just plainly | logical) reasons why adding "artificial" to the equation will | not change that. | [deleted] | JoshTko wrote: | It's akin to nuclear weapons. If you do not develop them, then | you'd be subject to the will of the ones that develops them | first. So invariably you have to invest in AGI lest, an | unsavory group develops it first. | HL33tibCe7 wrote: | Kind of, but the key difference between AGI and nuclear | weapons is that we can control our nuclear weapons. The | current state of AI safety is nowhere near the point where | controlling an AGI is possible. More disturbingly, to me it | seems likely that it will be easier to create an AGI than to | discover how to control it safely. | gambiting wrote: | >> The current state of AI safety is nowhere near the point | where controlling an AGI is possible. | | I just don't understand this logic though. Just.....switch | it off. Unlike humans, computers have an extremely easy way | to disable - just pull the plug. Even if your AGI is self- | replicating, somehow(and you also somehow don't realize | this _long_ before it gets to that point) just....pull the | plug. | | Even Carmack says this isn't going to be an instant process | - he expects to create an AGI with an intelligence of a | small animal first, then something that has the | intelligence of a toddler, then a small child, then maybe | many many years down the line an actual human person, but | it's far far away at this point. | | I don't understand how you can look at the current or even | predicted state of the technology that we have and say "we | are nowhere near the point where controlling an AGI is | possible". Like....just pull the plug. | oefnak wrote: | On the off chance that you're serious: Even if you can | pull the plug before it is too late, less moral people | like Meta Mark will not unplug theirs. And as soon as it | has access to the internet, it can copy itself. Good luck | pulling the plug of the internet. | gambiting wrote: | I'm 100% serious. I literally don't understand your | concern at all. | | >>And as soon as it has access to the internet, it can | copy itself. | | So can viruses, including ones that can "intelligently" | modify themselves to avoid detection, and yet this isn't | a major problem. How is this any differenent? | | >>Good luck pulling the plug of the internet. | | I could reach down and pull my ethernet cable out but it | would make posting this reply a bit difficult. | gwern wrote: | Worth noting that current models like Google LaMDA appear | to _already_ have access to the live Internet. The LaMDA | paper says it was trained to request arbitrary URLs from | the live Internet to get text snippets to use in its chat | contexts. Then you have everyone else, like Adept | https://www.adept.ai/post/introducing-adept (Forget | anything about how secure 'boxes' will be - will there be | boxes at all?) | HL33tibCe7 wrote: | > Like....just pull the plug. | | Watch this video https://youtu.be/3TYT1QfdfsM | gambiting wrote: | It's midnight, so I'm not super keen on watching the | whole thing(I'll get back to it this weekend) - but the | first 7 minutes sounds like his argument is that if you | build a humanoid robot with a stop button, the robot will | fight you to prevent you pressing its own stop button if | given an AGI? As if the very first instance of AGI is | going to be humanoid robots that have physical means of | preventing you from pressing their own stop button? | | Let me get this straight - this is an actual, real, | serious argument that they are making? | fatherzine wrote: | OTOH if you & your foes develop them both, then there is a | probability asymptotically approaching 1 that the weapons | will be used over the next X years. Perhaps the only winning | move is indeed not to play? | ericlewis wrote: | problem is you don't know if they aren't playing - so you | must still work on it. | pgcj_poster wrote: | > AGI means humans are no longer the smartest entities on the | planet. | | Superintelligence and AGI are not the same thing. An AI as | smart as an average 5 year old human is still an Artificial | General Intelligence. | legohead wrote: | It will be cute when some technology attains intelligence, | realizes there's no point to life, and self terminates. | dunefox wrote: | I admire and respect John Carmack. For me he's one of the greats, | along with people like Peter Norvig, for example. | throwaway11101 wrote: | I think he's a huge douche that held back Oculus enormously. | | Remember VrScript? No one else does. He fucking hates | developer's guts. He used that talk to take a dump on people | who were making stuff for the Quest with Unity. Despite nearly | all the Quest games being made in Unity, including the #1 hit | Beatsaber. | | Remember that Facebook post where he just went and shat on | someone's game? For no good reason? | | Can we have an opinion about first person shooters? His fucking | suck. Doom Eternal sucked. | | Who gives a fuck about the FPS engine anymore? FPS engines are | completely commoditized. Who even cares about that audience? 15 | year old boys need to be reading, not fucking wasting hours of | their lives on Modern Warfare. | | What does he know, really? | | He speaks a certain douchebaguese that plays well with the fat | Elon Musks out there. With the effective altruists and bitcoin | HODLrs. With people who leave their wives to fuck their | assistants (Future Fund), or who hire women to fuck them | (OpenAI), or you know, whatever the fuck Elon Musk is into. You | know, stuff that has the intellectual and emotional rigor of | what a rich 15 year old boy would be into. So no wonder he's | doing, something something AGI. | MichaelCollins wrote: | Carmack had nothing to do with Doom Eternal. | | For that matter, his contributions to the 90s FPSs he's most | known for were more on the technical side, not creative. He | was known for writing surprisingly performant FPS engines. | trention wrote: | AGI will be more dangerous that nuclear weapons. | | People are not allowed to start a nuclear weapon company. At all. | | Why are people allowed to casually start an AGI company? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-08-19 23:00 UTC)