> The sharp rise in Dota bot performance is apparently causing people internally to worry that the timeline to AGI is sooner than they’d thought before.

I do not see why one would worry about AGI just because there is a rise in bot performance. What kind of performance are we talking about? I have written bots for various games myself but never once I thought I am creating "intelligence" or that it would ever lead to that.

I think it's more like they're using a general-purpose intelligence (or intelligence-simulating) method that applies broadly to things, rather than creating a bespoke bot for a game that follows rules.

Im more worried of bots flooding all kinds of social media pushing public oppinion in the direction their owners want. I feel that this is already happening.

I'm pretty sure that LLMs already overpower the average arguing abilities of users on many platforms. Not even low resolution video calls are safe anymore to verify somebody is a real person.

That is true, we must assume nothing is genuine or authentic, video or audio. It used to be photos before, but it is no longer limited to images or photos anymore.

That was happening for many years before any AI, and now that AI is well known people are finally starting to be sceptical. A positive development.

It's happening already at a large scale: https://www.cyber.gc.ca/en/news-events/russian-state-sponsor...

Kurzgesagt had a bit on it in their AI video, but that game bot is specialized to your game, it doesn't generalize. OpenAI used a more general AI to drive dota.

eg Deep Blue beat Kasparov (1997), but that was a narrow AI and couldn't play go or dota.

https://youtu.be/fa8k8IQ1_X0

What lessons are you alluding to? He's essentially telling them to go start their own company if they want things their way. But their resistance might've played a role in the end in preventing Musk taking control of the company.

I assume the conflict is around how they set it up in a first place. They didn’t want the researchers to be financially motivated.

> The researchers would have significant financial upside but it would be uncorrelated to what they build, which should eliminate some of the conflict (we’ll pay them a competitive salary and give them YC equity for the upside). We’d have an ongoing conversation about what work should be open-sourced and what shouldn’t. At some point we’d get someone to run the team, but he/she probably shouldn’t be on the governance board.