18
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 May 2026
18 points (100.0% liked)
Just Post
1500 readers
70 users here now
Just post something 💛
Lemmy's general purpose discussion community with no specific topic.
Sitewide lemmy.world rules apply here.
Additionally, this is a no AI content community. We are here for human interaction, not AI slop! Posts or comments flagged as AI generated will be removed.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah as someone with a nuanced take on AI, Sam Altman is just an idiot. AGI is the hope that somehow AIs will solve it all, but it's like the existence of God; you can convince yourself, but it's just not bearing out. The most positive estimations say we're getting to some kind of AGI in the next 20-40y, and the general consensus now is AGI is a pipedream, because it's not well defined and also kind of mathematically impossible. If the AI goes by probability and the average person is not all-knowing, the AI is bound to make errors, and self-correcting behavior is just not strong enough.
What I'm trying to say is, if you're an investor this is just a matter of time before we reach AGI, and if you're a scientist, this is all a nothing burger, and I can tell you which one I'd believe.
I think he's not really an idiot, just unprincipled: he's doing that "move fast and break stuff" thing and not caring who/what it hurts. Of course he'll say whatever he needs to say to keep it going.
I think that's overstating it. LLMs have had an enormous impact on AI-related disciplines. And though they're not in and of themselves "the solution" they're impressive new tools that can advance a science. But you still have to do the science.
Well I didn't say Sam Altman is an idiot in general but he is an idiot when it comes to his beliefs. If you believe him literally with everything he says, he says sone buckwild things about the future, which mo scientist would agree with. But if you agree with his business decisions and the things he is funding or taking part in, he is also stupid. Yes he made a lot of money, but he is currently trying desperately to keep OpenAI afloat and his investments make it look like he partially believes either there's a big breakthrough into AGI or that somehow he can turn the company profitable, and currently everyone who takes some time to look into it understands that the probability is effectively zero.
And you should also look at my second quote in context. I said the scientific consensus (if you look at latest meta studies of the field of machine learning and neural networks, including all the small variants as well, we are plateauing. It's true, AI did a lot and it's not going away, but we are not reaching AGI anytime soon.
Why am I being such a stickler about this?
The question was specifically aimed at investments with a hint of confusion on the hype and thus more non-scientific fields. And I was basically saying, the investments are pretty far removed from actual capabilities. I was saying he is dumb, and this is dumb, because there's no real correlation between the AI Investments and it's current scientific state.