I study ML, and I completely agree with the quoted statement. Deep networks have gotten pretty good at recognizing correlations in data. That's not on the same map as AGI. I don't know what "pre-AGI" means exactly, but I would include things like counterfactual reasoning or ability to develop and test models of the world, which are far from our AI capabilities so far. (edit: yes I am including RL, considering the relative performances of model-based vs model-free, I think this is a fair statement. Don't mean to be pessimistic, just realistic and trying to set expectations to avoid more winters.)

To be clear, I don't think Deep Learning = AGI. I think it's just one important piece, but I think we are also making many other rapid advances in relevant areas (neuralink's 10x+ improvement in electrodes, for one).

I was actively engaged in the field in the late-nineties when AI was also five years around the corner. I’ve mostly lost interest since then, and the disappointment that is deep learning has only dulled my enthusiasm further (not that it hasn’t achieved some cool things, but it’s a long way from where we’d thought we’d be by now).

> I was actively engaged in the field in the late-nineties

So was Geoffrey Everest Hinton

> I’ve mostly lost interest since then

but he didn't give up.

If you expect someone to just hand us AGI in a nicely wrapped package with a bow, with all the details neatly described, you are absolutely right, that's really far off!

But for the record there are many people actively grinding it out in the field, day in and day out, who don't give up when things get hard.

The kind of language used in this release has actually hurt AI considerably before, so by pointing out that it's delusional I am not giving up and helping save AI from the research winter that OpenAI seems to be working on. You're welcome, AI!

okay I'll concede your point that perhaps being bold could be bad publicity for the field. I think that's a reasonable position to take. I don't think it is correct, but I think it's reasonable. Even if it were the precursor to a drop in funding, I don't think the previous "AI Winter" was so long, in comparison to the century-long gaps in the advance of other technologies in history, (binary was invented hundreds of years before the computer).

I would definitely not call OpenAI delusional. I would say all OpenAI is being here is "honest".

They are simply stating what the math tells them.

"E pur si muove"

> They are simply stating what the math tells them.

Which math?

He's also telling us we're going in the wrong direction and have been with our approach to reinforced learning. He's not convinced that's how the brain works. In fact he's convinced it's not.

> > calling it "pre-AGI" pretentious to the level of delusion.

>I don't think you know what you are talking about. Do you do Deep Learning? If you are not actively engaged in the field, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss others who are (especially not others who are at the top of the field).

I do (or at least I try, I get money for my attempts though) and I concur with calling it delusion. So does Francois Cholet. So does Hinton to some degree, so does the founder of deepmind (or at least they did in 2017: https://venturebeat.com/2018/12/17/geoffrey-hinton-and-demis... ).

I want to like OpenAI, I think they did the right thing with GPT-2 and I give them a lot of credit for publishing things. That being said, I remain skeptical about AGI, highly skeptical about AGI being feasible, or the thing to worry about. I always make the argument that either research towards controlling an AGI/AGI alignment is a techified version of reserach into the problem of good global governance (in which case it is an interesting problem that desperately needs solving), or it is useless (because no matter how nicely you control the AGI, a non-accountable elite within the current system, the less-than-perfectly aligned government etc. will strongarm you into giving control to THEM before you come close to deploying it) or it is delusional (because you think you are smart enough to build AGI without these elites finding out AND smart and/or wise enough to do what is best for humanity).

> the less-than-perfectly aligned government etc. will strongarm you into giving control to THEM before you come close to deploying it

and

> because you think you are smart enough to build AGI without these elites finding out AND smart and/or wise enough to do what is best for humanity

Are very good points and I share those concerns too, and have no good answers. I'm in the pessimist camp when it comes to AGI--I would be heavily it's going to happen but I wouldn't bet a dollar whether it will end up being good for humanity, as I haven't a clue.