They’re leaving like redditors to Lemmy. There’s dozens of them!

Nobody knows what it actually takes to reach AGI, so nobody knows whether a certain system has enough compute and context size to get there.

For all we know, it could turn out way simpler than anyone thought - or the exact opposite.

My point still stands: you (or Cameron) couldn’t possibly know with absolute certainty.

I’d have zero issue with the claim if you’d included even a shred of humility and acknowledged you might be wrong. You made an absolute statement instead. That I disagree with.

It’s perfectly valid to discuss the dangers of AGI whether LLMs are the path there or not. I’ve been concerned about AGI and ASI for far longer than I’ve even known about LLMs, and people were worried about exactly the same stuff back then as they are now.

This is precisely the kind of threat you should try to find a solution for before we actually reach AGI - because once we do, it’s way, way too late.

Also:

There is factually 0 chance we’ll reach AGI with the current brand of technology.

You couldn’t possibly know that with absolute certainty.

If anyone who wasn’t the head of an LLM company spouted this drivel, they’d be locked away in a padded room and Axios would rightly be called out for exacerbating the mental health crisis of a paranoid schizophrenic.

Like Eliezer Yudkowsky, Roman Yampolskiy, Stuart Russell, Nick Bostrom, Yoshua Bengio, Geoffrey Hinton, Max Tegmark and Toby Ord?

This comes across more as a warning than a sales pitch.

If only I could convince myself to be as dismissive about the threats of AGI as the average user here seems to be…