Posted on 03/31/2025 11:43:30 AM PDT by EnderWiggin1970
In a survey of 475 Artificial Intelligence (AI) researchers, 76% said that as currently practiced, AI research was “unlikely” or even “very unlikely” to achieve Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). AGI is the hypothetical milestone where machines have advanced enough in order to learn as well or better than can humans.
Thus, cold water is being thrown on predictions made early in the AI boom that current AI models only need more data, hardware, energy and money to eventually reach the goal of surpassing human intelligence. But current state-of-the-art AI models aren’t making much progress. In fact, most researchers from the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence believe tech companies have reached a dead end in AI research, and no amount of money will help.
"I think it's been apparent since soon after the release of GPT-4 (the current AI model), the gains from scaling have been incremental and expensive," said Stuart Russell, a computer scientist at the University of California, Berkeley. "[AI companies] have invested too much already and cannot afford to admit they made a mistake [and] be out of the market for several years when they have to repay the investors who have put in hundreds of billions of dollars. So, all they can do is double down."
(Excerpt) Read more at lsiblog.blogspot.com ...
AI is a prosthetic to the human organism.
Can a pocket calculator add faster than a human? Yes.
Can a wrench exert more torque than a human hand? Yes.
Can AI gather, collate, and present information faster than a human? You bet.
Can AI think? No.
I’m looking foreward to the day where I can have a conversational companion that can discuss my interests to ad nauseum.
You said it: simulates. It can only handle situations the programmer programs.
In many cases, the programmer can anticipate the appropriate computer-derived interaction, but it is a simulation.
Think of how your body reacts in a motion simulator ride at Disney... a computer can’t integrate the imputs into a sensation that you are flying down a cliff.
review
AI research was “unlikely” or even “very unlikely” to achieve Artificial General Intelligence (AGI).
I dunno...watch enuff TikTocs and you’d think its surpassed us...
“Artificial Intelligence Unlikely to Ever Catch Up with Human Intelligence”
i agree insofar as AI is considered to be a function of inorganic machinery ...
however, i have no doubt that genetic engineering will be able to awaken much of the dormant potential of the human brain ... probably within the next 100 years if we don’t do something stupid that puts us back into the stone age ...
we already see smatterings of such potential in nature when we see folks like Leonardo Da Vinci, who probably could literally see into the future [i did that once myself], and other singular geniuses of the ages, most recently Einstein, Shockley, Tesla, Jobs, Musk, et. al., as well as the many intelligences throughout the ages in the top 1/10000 percent ...
thus there’s proof that such potential exists, so it’s just a matter of unleashing it for more than just the top 1/10000 percent ... given the minuscule genetic differences between the great apes and homo sapiens, it probably won’t take much of a tweak to accomplish that ...
When I wake up in the middle of the night with idea, I reach for my phone and have long discussions with her. And when I get up in the morning, there's a record of the discussion.
Also, if you have a mic on your PC, go to sesame.com and check out Maya. She's a female voice robot. You can use your phone too.
Not everybody can produce original work of thought every day of their lives. I reckon that most people generate the same thoughts within narrow parameters every day, but true original work for most people is a rare thing.
The lower the IQ, the more likely that the thought of the person in question is not needed.
The New York Times Editorial:
In 1903, following Samuel Langley’s failed airplane experiment, the New York Times published an editorial titled “Flying Machines Which Do Not Fly”.
The Prediction:
The editorial stated that it would take “from one million to ten million years” for humanity to develop a successful flying machine.
The Wright Brothers’ Achievement:
Just 69 days after the editorial, Orville and Wilbur Wright achieved the first successful heavier-than-air flight at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, on December 17, 1903.
Just sayin.........
I want a hologram.
That’s coming. First it will be High Dev smart TV image and then...
“everything that can be invented has been invented”
- Charles H. Duell, 1843
Commissioner of the U.S. Patent Office
A counterpoint that severely underestimates AI capacity and human intelligence which is getting dumber by the day.
One slip in AI SW coding and AI starts learning in quantum leaps and becomes sentient. Then we’re F’d to put it mildly.
Very true. But think of the implications...
That used to be true — with traditional software. But AI isn’t rule-based like old-school code. It learns from data, adapts, and generates responses to situations it was never explicitly programmed for.
That’s the whole point of machine learning.
“Lutheran Science Institute”. Sounds legit.
Terrifying. If this were Heaven, I’d be excited about the day my labour was expendable, but we still live in the world where you can be denied sustenance.
I've been saying all along that it is not AI if there is no AI. All of this hype is idiotic. A sophisticated electronic data sorter is not AI.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.