There is a problem with AI, but it's not with the A part, it's with the I part. I want you to give me an algorithmic description of scalable intelligence that covers intelligent behaviors at the smallest scales of life all the way to human behaviors. I know you cannot do this has many very 'intelligent' people have been working on this problem for a long time and have not come up with an agreed upon answer. The fact you see an increase and change in definitions as a failure seems pretty sad to me. We have vastly increased our understanding of what intelligence is and that previous definitions have needed to adapt and change to new information. This occurs in every field of science and is a measure of progress, again that you see this differently is worrying.
Because it's better than a zombie with informational superpowers? Especially because once it shows the agency of a teenager, that demonstrates the potential for the agency of an adult.
"There is a problem with AI, but it's not with the A part, it's with the I part. I want you to give me an algorithmic description of scalable intelligence that covers intelligent behaviors at the smallest scales of life all the way to human behaviors. I know you cannot do this has many very 'intelligent' people have been working on this problem for a long time and have not come up with an agreed upon answer. The fact you see an increase and change in definitions as a failure seems pretty sad to me. We have vastly increased our understanding of what intelligence is and that previous definitions have needed to adapt and change to new information. This occurs in every field of science and is a measure of progress, again that you see this differently is worrying."
This AI issue will always fail at the I issue because the we are trying to define too much. We need to break down intelligence to much smaller digestible pieces instead of trying to treat it as a reachable whole. The models we are creating would then fall more neatly into categorical units rather than the poorly defined mess of what is considered human intelligence.
The training data can be tweaked and more compute hours can be thrown at LLMs until it no longer makes financial sense to do so and then, as the OP said, it will hit a hard stop.
As for large algorithmic improvements, I'll be excited by them when they've been published and demonstrated. Assuming they're just inevitably going to happen is just wishful thinking.
Feels odd to dismiss such a huge breakthrough by saying it’s still not as good as the pinnacle of AI (general AI). Just because the Apple 2 wasn’t a home super computer, didn’t make it less revolutionary.
The biggest issue to me is that you can't trust the results. You always have to double check the them. I know it's mainly beta but I need to see more to get a better judgement.
I think your expectations are in line with my hopes: That our state of the art "AI" performance is very close to local minima that we won't escape from for quite a while.
I really don't want lose my overpaid job gluing together overengineered shite into CRUD applications.
How would we do that?
Banning research is just not feasible.
Now, If you wanted to resist that and give humanity a few more hundred years, you would clog the bottlenecks on AI progress, which are research talent, data and compute.
If you marched the police into NeurIPS and the military into the datacenters, and you coordinated with other large countries to do the same, and you strongarmed those countries that resisted to do the same, you could get pretty darn far. We humans have managed to greatly slow down the rollout of nuclear technology. We may be able to do the same with AI, if someone figures out which political movement will get into power next, and tells them to read the enlightened writings of Elizier Yudkowsky.
I would also like an “Extinction Rebellion” or “Just Stop Oil” style movement against the artificial intelligence industry, as I appreciate their rebellious and leftist aesthetics.
We are getting to the limits of how fast hardware can be and we are rapidly processing thru available cheap data. At some point it's going to get very expensive to gather data and increase hardware speed.
We'll a see a few years of excitement,(5yrs?,10yrs?) but it will stop until the next big breakthrough. Hopefully there will be one but nothing is guaranteed. That's the AI winter I'm talking about.
AI will have an impact but it won't be the singularity type that some people dream about. Think of the automation of work that happened during the industrial revolution. Now, think of it for white collar work. There are a lot of white collar work that the current AI can automate but it won't be everything and it won't take over to rule over us.
I suspect the current crop of AIs will find very specific functions and hit a hard stop. They will change how we function but we won't be seeing a singularity type of revolution anytime soon. IBM's Watson is a good example of a system with a lot of possibilities but not finding a use. I think most of AI will fall in that realm. We have to get over the idea that it's smart. It's not.
An AI winter is coming so the improvements will come to a stop and we will find its limits. We are no where near general AI.
It's impressive that it can parse the question and write an relevant answer but it's not a robotic SWE.
For now, it's a good tool for cheating on tests.