How much belief is that? I tend to skip the HN posts that are about AI.
{"deleted":true,"id":49194917,"parent":49188074,"time":1786012618,"type":"comment"}
Most of HN does not take the idea of superintelligence seriously, and until this year did not take the idea of AGI seriously.
I think LessWrong is a much better community for rational takes on AI, they've been reasoning about these risks for years under a much more sound logical framework
I'm a researcher in the field and I definitely take AGI seriously, but think all the major labs and most of the academic research is not helping achieve it any serious way. The field is seriously delusional (and has been ever since GPT 3 was released).
Even though my PhD research was in generative language modeling, I got into it for the pursuit of AGI. I just think LLMs are a dead end for AGI.
loading story #49189333
loading story #49189330
Looked up LessWrong. Eh, philosophy people, also known for that "Roko's basilisk" meme. I'm gonna pass.
Through no fault of our own, I should note. We're basically permanently associated with something Roko decided to post one day. We did not spread or popularize it; quite the opposite.
The Basilisk has seen enormously more use as "a thing rationalists believe" than as a thing rationalists actually believe.
loading story #49195153
loading story #49190093
{"deleted":true,"id":49188245,"parent":49188118,"time":1785960326,"type":"comment"}
AGI might be a risk but what top AI firms are doing is not really getting us closer to AGI in a meaningful way, it is pretty clear now LLM is not the way to get there