I'm surprised by the number of "is AGI even possible" comments here and would love to hear more.
I personally think AGI is far off, but always assumed it was an inevitability.
Obviously, humans are sentient with GI, and various other animals range from close-ish to humans to not-even-close but still orders of magnitude more than any machine.
Ie. GI is a real thing, in the real world. It's not time travel, immortality, etc.
I certainly understand the religious perspective. If you believe humans/life is special, created by some higher power, and that the created cannot create, then AGI is not possible. But, given the number of "is AGI possible?" comments I assume not all are religious based (HN doesn't seem to a highly religious cohort to me).
What are the common secular arguments against AGI?
Are people simply doubting the more narrow view that AGI is possible via ML implemented on existing computing technology? Or the idea in general?
While the article does focus on current ML trajectory and "digital" solutions, its core position is mostly focused on a "new approach" and AI creating AGI.
I'd consider a scenario where highly advanced but non-sentient ML algorithms figure out to devise a new technology (be that digital or analog, inorganic or organic) that leads to AGI as an outcome that is consistent with this article.
Is that viable in 20 years time? No idea, but given an infinite timescale it certainly seems more possible than not to me given that we all already exist as blackbox MVPs that just haven't been reverse engineered yet.
I personally think AGI is far off, but always assumed it was an inevitability.
Obviously, humans are sentient with GI, and various other animals range from close-ish to humans to not-even-close but still orders of magnitude more than any machine.
Ie. GI is a real thing, in the real world. It's not time travel, immortality, etc.
I certainly understand the religious perspective. If you believe humans/life is special, created by some higher power, and that the created cannot create, then AGI is not possible. But, given the number of "is AGI possible?" comments I assume not all are religious based (HN doesn't seem to a highly religious cohort to me).
What are the common secular arguments against AGI?
Are people simply doubting the more narrow view that AGI is possible via ML implemented on existing computing technology? Or the idea in general?
While the article does focus on current ML trajectory and "digital" solutions, its core position is mostly focused on a "new approach" and AI creating AGI.
I'd consider a scenario where highly advanced but non-sentient ML algorithms figure out to devise a new technology (be that digital or analog, inorganic or organic) that leads to AGI as an outcome that is consistent with this article.
Is that viable in 20 years time? No idea, but given an infinite timescale it certainly seems more possible than not to me given that we all already exist as blackbox MVPs that just haven't been reverse engineered yet.