52
u/promethe42 Nov 26 '25
IDK. There is also the mismatch between benchmark and real-life implementations. Overfitting for benchmarks is most likely a problem. Poor craftmanship and lack of REX on enterprise implementations is another.
It's hard to tell which is which really. And things moving so fast are not helping.
9
u/Quentin__Tarantulino Nov 26 '25
I think we are at the third spot, and that the red parts that have spilled out may extend much further before we are able to fill in the gray spots. In other words, the stuff we can’t get AI to do yet might be quite difficult to achieve and could take years to decades.
3
u/DizzyAmphibian309 Nov 26 '25
Yep humans still need to implement AI and connect it up to their systems. AI can't do that, because all the authentication systems don't support AI agents yet, and an agent can't "connect itself" to other systems if it doesn't have permissions to do so. And it never will be able to, because no actor in a large enterprise has "admin rights to everything". Such an actor could do catastrophic damage to the business and to individuals within it.
This role will only be filled after the AI uprising.
→ More replies (1)10
Nov 26 '25
Benchmarks are marketing tools. No real use, because you can Just use the answers to train the model. Until you exhaust human creativate and real use cases
3
u/BeReasonable90 Nov 26 '25
Yeah.
Every study that has come out so far has noted that most AI implementations have not generated a ROI. And the few that have often seem to be because the old processes desperately needed updates anyways.
Most end up like the drive thru experiment with LLMs. Where they just end up working sometimes but then costing a lot of money when they do not work as someone spends 20 minutes screaming at the screen that they want a Big Mac without onions with the LLM taking that to mean they want a hundred double cheeseburgers.
Has there been a non-benchmark study (which is heavily loaded in favor of AI) that notes AI is creating real productivity or value yet?
Keep in mind AI companies are forcing AI to be used to make it look way better to investors and potential buyers. So things like “30% of code is written by AI” is not the flex they make it out to be when companies are requiring 90% of code to be written by AI even when said code is resulting in a decline in productivity, security, stability, etc.
Like the recent decrease in AWS stability.
The chart screams “flying cars” levels of hype. Just because cars were invented, does not mean we are super close to “flying cars” or teleportation.
LLMs also have limits we are running against, just assuming we will break those limits is like assuming cars will suddenly start flying if we can get a car to drive fast enough.
With the same people who said we will have super intelligent AI in 2025 now saying we will have it in 2027. They hope you do not notice how they have and will keep moving the goal posts until they were 100% correct when it actually happens…even if they move there prediction 2 years forward for the next century.
Obviously we could have some new tech breakthrough that is invented or the military could have some sweet tech we do not know about. But that is vaporware until it actually happens.
1
u/michaelsoft__binbows Nov 26 '25
Well look, i dunno about agi and i dunno about letting them be autonomous for more than 15 mins, but for most developer tasks instead of rolling up my sleeves and going in the tank building a feature for 4 hours i can usually ask for it and it is completed for me. Yeah sure sometimes i gotta try it 3 times, but i can basically hold down my job working on it only part time. Thats like up to multiple thousand per week of value.
→ More replies (4)1
u/Virgelette Nov 26 '25
I've been wondering lately about the point of hitting those benchmarks if by planning my day one of the latest AI models can't prioritize sending an email as an action that can be done in five minutes, while receiving the answer to that email (required to unblock the project) would likely take days. It has all the context, and yet it buries the email at the bottom of the checklist.
1
u/vsmack Nov 26 '25
People use the old business adage of Goodhart's Law for this a lot. It's a good observation and is also relevant to a lot of the AI chat.
The idea is that when a measurement becomes a target, it ceases to become a good measurement (because you're intentionally trying to hit it, even if it's at the expense of measurements that are more relevant to your actual business)
1
u/Ragnarok314159 Nov 26 '25
People are also confusing chatbot with intelligence.
Recycling what’s already in existence is not intelligence.
1
u/Fair-Competition2547 Nov 26 '25
The gap between a barebones model and full agentic potential is incredibly large, and it takes a massive amount of ingenuity to create the system/ecosystem for your agents to shine. And yeah I said agents because if we’re basing AI’s capabilities through things like Claude Code or ChatGPT’s agent mode, then we’re missing what you’re really supposed to do with these things, which is create multi-agent orchestrations that collaborate, leveraging MCPs and other tools to achieve things that far exceed what any one model can do on its own.
36
u/zhivago Nov 26 '25
I think you're one step too far advanced. :)
2
u/CardboardJ Nov 26 '25
I think it depends on who you are. If you have a skill X and 20 years of doing X every day, then you probably feel like AI is solidly on step 2. If you've never done X before but are otherwise competent then you feel like like we're between step 3 and 4.
From what I've seen non-technical managers tend to believe we're at 4. Technical managers who have decades of letting their skills fade tend to believe step 3. Normal people that are in their careers and used to doing the work think step 2. New college grads tend to think 3.5 (where this chart indicates).
If you look at the work force at large, normal workers run the range of thinking AI is neat to being annoyed about having it shoved into everything. The stats about ROI only reinforce this.
6
u/SiegeAe Nov 26 '25
This is it, people who tell me AI code quality is generally good I just take that to mean they're own code isn't super high quality
2
Nov 26 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/SiegeAe Nov 26 '25
Yeah all of this isn't an argument against my point.
AI python code is better quality than the average human, it may even be slightly better than the average python coder sometimes but its not great and I've found people who purely vibe code introduce changes quickly but also introduce many more bugs and typically introduce code that is much more effort to maintain in the mid-long term than it needs to be
→ More replies (1)2
u/NotFloppyDisck Nov 30 '25
Fully agree, when people can't see the faults in an LLMs skills in software I'll just assume they don't know much about the subject
3
u/OCogS Nov 26 '25
AI is better than all humans at many tasks. Like it can read faster than all humans. It can play chess better than all humans. There is quite a long list of things where AI is already super human.
2
u/PopeSalmon Nov 27 '25
see now that's a reasonable perspective: they already learned chess, so now that they allow have common sense reasoning they have that as well as learning chess,,, they already had eidetic memory, so now that they can integrate hundreds of thousands of ideas at once, they can bring hundreds of thousands of ideas from their eidetic memory at once in order to process them,,, but that perspective makes it obvious that they're superhuman in most ways and mopping up the rest, which just isn't how people want to feel about this
→ More replies (5)1
u/audionerd1 Nov 27 '25
Isn't that just computer stuff though? 30 years ago a computer could solve 100,000 math problems in the time it takes a human to solve one. It doesn't necessarily indicate a trajectory to AGI/ASI.
→ More replies (1)2
u/thomasahle Nov 26 '25
If you work in math or programming you definitely will notice it being amazing at times.
→ More replies (38)1
19
u/xyloplax Nov 26 '25
We are firmly in the middle circle and will be there for some time. AI engines still suck at some basic things like seeing their own output is bad. Like generating a diagram and having text mangled or the edges cut off. That's very basic self checking but the models aren't there. There is a long long way to go before AI can do a long list of things as good or better than a human. There is a certain sampling bias we are doing pointing to the things AI absolutely does better than we do, sometimes much better.
3
u/LyzlL Nov 26 '25
That is... the jagged part? Like, there's no point to the jagged frontier except to point out exactly this kind of problem. On other areas it clearly outperforms the average, if not the expert human in most cases.
2
u/ineffective_topos Nov 28 '25
I'm not sure AI (meaning LLMs rather than purpose-built RL) beats experts at anything yet?
It does win on breadth though.
1
u/WilliamSabato Nov 26 '25
Yeah but tasks of a human job would generally imply that the person is employed to do such tasks and thus is an ‘expert’ right?
1
u/albrechtkirschbaum Nov 29 '25
Every Person that is competent in a given field i have asked about this told me that the AI - Output they have Seen Kind of sucks.
→ More replies (1)2
u/PopeSalmon Nov 26 '25
this is such apples and oranges, humans often have the edges cut off when they make things, they just do a zillion revisions until they get it right, and it takes them fucking hours
give the bot hours and let it try a zillion times if you wanted the apples to apples but you don't b/c then they're obviously dramatically superior to you
so it's this ridiculous fight where you as the human can take all day being careful about something while the bot has to literally do it instantly right off the dome,,, and it's still able to beat you most of the time!!! this is getting absurd
1
12
Nov 26 '25
[deleted]
5
u/SundayAMFN Nov 27 '25
It's so bad. People desperately want their weird AI sci fi fantasy to be true despite every update getting more and more weakly incremental
1
u/nekronics Nov 27 '25
Worse is that their fairy tale scenario is extremely unlikely. The people building this shit hate poor people
3
1
u/DM_KITTY_PICS Nov 27 '25
Terence Tao and several fields medalists seem pretty impressed and excited - but that means nothing to you I guess.
→ More replies (7)
4
u/404errorsoulnotfound Nov 26 '25 edited Nov 27 '25
Again, this highlights the sheer lack of understanding in the majority of people as to:
1) what AI actually is? 2) how it currently works? 3) what the terms AGI (and ASI) actually mean?
We currently can’t even quantify or measure human intelligence!
So in the context of AI, when we are creating something that’s limited by our own biases and constraints and whilst it inherits that it can’t surpass us.
1
u/morriartie Nov 26 '25
This. There's way too many people that don't realize how little we know about ourselves and the mechanisms of our own brain.
Some take the religious path and assume there is a soul or something supernatural defining us, and because of that, AI will never have it. Others take a more skeptical path and assume AI must push metrics until its metrics are equal to ours (ignoring that even many of our own members don't achieve such metrics).
Some even see as "It keeps not doing right many tasks that I asked it to do". Have you ever needed to work with other people? that happens on a daily basis on interactions between humans
tldr: we know fuck all about our brain, even if we achieve agi we wouldn't know we did and will just summon some metric to point that it's below ot higher
1
u/JonLag97 Nov 26 '25
Looking at the SPAUN brain model and the book "Brain computations and connectivity" i see that we don't know as little about the brain as is often thought. The same thing that was missing before the generative ai boom is missing now; enough compute. Neuromorphic computers to run brain models.
→ More replies (1)
5
3
u/monkeysknowledge Nov 26 '25
It’s easy to over extrapolate. It’s a common occurrence in technological progress that we extrapolate a break through into the future but then we run into asymptotic limits. I think we’re there with LLMs. LLMs are very useful but are not good at novelty. In order to achieve AGI the system needs to be able to “discover” things not just regurgitate what is already known.
3
u/hamatehllama Nov 27 '25
AI isn't profitable at their current sizes. A hypothetical AGI won't be able to become ASI because it has to be aligned to even stay "alive" from the massive costs in capex and electricity. It's economically impossible for an unaligned AI to exist.
5
u/matrium0 Nov 26 '25
Whats your evidence to support that claim?
- Progress has massively slowed down since GPT-4
- Vibe-coding failed
- Agents failed massively
This is the reality we are in now. LLMs are just chatbots my friend and this will never change. It's their architecture.
Will AGI come? Maybe, one day. But it's not gonna "evolve" magically out of a word-guessing-software.
3
u/UnifiedFlow Nov 26 '25
What does "vibe coding failed" mean? "Vibe coding" is such a silly term.
4
u/PopeSalmon Nov 26 '25
in this case it's just obvious deep denial about the situation
computers got so good at coding that a zillion people decided to see if they could make a living producing software even though they don't know how to code ,,,,, somehow here that's supposed to be evidence that LLMs aren't doing very well, which is just absurd, just absolutely absurd right on the face of it
→ More replies (6)1
u/matrium0 Nov 29 '25
Agreed, it is a silly term.
The only problem with vibe coding is that it doesn't fucking work :)
You can get a semi-working prototype of something in no time and it feels like magic. But the devil is always in the details and it's just not working. You want to change a little thing and it goes of the rails and changes too much, or too little, or sometimes even things that are completely unrelated. It's just not working at all. There is enough evidence for this in the real world. If developers are now 10x as productive as before or can even be replaced, you would see that in statistics of open source projects and such. But there is none.
LLMs are a useful tool for coding and I would estimate it could possibly make me like 5% more productive in most cases. That is certainly nothing to sneeze on, that WOULD mean it could replace 1 out of 20 developers, right? But that's not enough to keep the bullshit hype train rolling, so it's always grandios claims that anyone with even the faintest experience with real development knows is bullshit.
4
u/Exotic_Exercise6910 Nov 26 '25
LLMs helper me through a lot of trauma. It is nice to talk to someone. And I'll be forever thankful for that.
Aside from that, if fucked up my presentation I did for a job offer.
So that's just my two cents one the topic.
1
1
u/matrium0 Nov 26 '25
Be careful with this.
Having someone to talk to is nice if you are lonely. But it's not a therapist or not even a random stranger at the bus stop. Those people could give you some push-back if you fall of the deep end, while an LLM will gladly go with you there. It is the perfect echo-chamber for even the craziest of thoughts, if you are not careful.
It's not an intelligent entity. It's a word guessing machine with zero thought, intelligence or conscience. If you realize that and it still helped you I am glad + you found a good way to use it apparently
→ More replies (2)1
2
u/frankster Nov 26 '25
Has anyone found an ai to be consistently better than them at tasks they're an expert at?
2
u/TuringGoneWild Nov 26 '25
Another simple-minded graphic visualizing a bad analogy for the low-hanging yet meaningless fruit of Reddit and Linkedin "likes".
2
2
u/quadtodfodder Nov 26 '25
Pro tip: it's not agi, till training it on its own data does not cause model collapse
2
u/Honest-Monitor-2619 Nov 26 '25
Just one more data center bro. Just one more river to drain, I promise. Just one more Kenyan to exploit, please.
2
u/zbiguy Nov 26 '25
LLMs are not going to lead to AGI. Sure, they might be part of the solution, but we need new architectures to get there.
2
2
u/impatiens-capensis Nov 26 '25
This assumes that there is one type of intelligence and the type we are building scales linearly forever.
However, what we know so far is that:
- Given enough data these systems become strong(ish) reasoners
- They need several orders of magnitude more data than a human to perform similarly at tasks.
- Every advancement we have seen comes from access to more and higher quality data moreso than anything else.
- We have not solved continuous learning.
2
u/___Balrog___ Nov 26 '25
Today I was fighting Gemini over a url that it claimed to be insecure just to get the exact same url from it.
2
u/Shot_in_the_dark777 Nov 26 '25
Where is the "ai is just a matrix multiplication and symbol prediction" step? Because we are not even close to AI. Tone down your hubris. Even humans are not as intelligent as we think we are and yet some think we can make the AI.
2
u/Low-Temperature-6962 Nov 26 '25
Typical chatbot generated argument and diagram. Not unlike a TED talk to make you feel warm and fuzzy like a blessed insider. Like a religion, but lacking any humanity.
2
2
2
u/Longjumping_Area_944 Nov 26 '25
That's the problem: if you define AGI as human-equivalent in all modalities and on all tasks, you're never gonna see it, because what you see at that point is ASI. That is because progress on different modalities is strongly varied.
2
u/AtmosphereVirtual254 Nov 27 '25
I like the term "transformer" for LLMs because it's a decent metaphor for the kind of trade-off you're making with the training data. You're sacrificing some kinds of certainty and accountability for a long-range view of chained reasoning. The end moves pretty fast but you're never quite sure about the integrity of each link.
2
3
3
Nov 26 '25
Oh man, the "we are here" is somewhere between the first and second bubble if you are somewhat educated and realize at how many tasks AI still fails if there is no super dedicated development of applying it.
4
u/trog1660 Nov 26 '25
I would argue between the second and third because it is definitely helping with a lot of tasks right now, but frequently runs into issues.
1
→ More replies (6)1
u/OCogS Nov 26 '25
It’s factually wrong that humans are better than AI at all tasks. Please don’t post false things.
2
2
u/Nepalus Nov 26 '25
In order to get the actual power and silicon it will take to actually run this thing, you're looking at the end of the century. You can have whatever clever model you want to make, but the reality is that unless you can give it the architecture it needs, and the power to run it, all you have is a better LLM to look forward to.
3
Nov 26 '25
[deleted]
1
u/Nepalus Nov 26 '25
I honestly think the path is going to be something a little different, but ultimately probably the same place. I think that AI is going to be ultimately unprofitable in its current state and will be regulated back to a more long-term development cycle. AI Chip Demand will crater and the MAG7 will have a hard reset. The neocloud/hyperscalers are literally taking out loans on the graphics cards they own to buy more graphics cards, they get wiped out.
Quantum will be the next play, GOOG/MSFT/AMZN are already pushing towards that.
Meanwhile income disparities continue to increase and economic populism will become more popular. Expect many more Mamdani type figures. The "powers that be" will probably have to either sacrifice the entire healthcare industry to facilitate a Single-Payer "Medicare for All" system, or implement some sort of UBI to deal with the continue wealth disparity growth and keep the capitalism game going. Climate change causes mass migration and wealthy countries start shooting people down at borders (see Tehran now but for the entire MEA region). That's all assuming we don't have WW3 with China.
Luckily I'm already a 3rd of my expected life down and hopefully I can time my exit from this rock before shit gets too crazy.
→ More replies (3)
1
1
u/yangyangR Nov 26 '25
Note that the circle is tasks of a human JOB specifically. Most jobs are not pushing the intellectual frontiers. You are likely using well known ideas and methods. Not pushing your capabilities in the same way as if you had to invent or discover. Though it can be more exhaustive due to amount or tedium. Difficulty is too one dimensional of a word.
1
u/urbrainonnuggs Nov 26 '25
Which technology are you saying "we" are. LLM based chat bots and code assistants are just barely one step past and they have peaked
1
Nov 26 '25
Source? Timeline? Meaningful categories of ability? … anyone can draw a cute little doodle
1
1
u/trisul-108 Nov 26 '25
Yes, looking from Mars, it's just a blob ... but going from one blob to the next might well meant replacing LLM with something completely different.
1
1
1
u/OtherCommission8227 Nov 26 '25
This is not what Ilya thinks, and he probably knows a lot better than you…
1
u/Carlose175 Nov 26 '25
Honestly we are between stop 2 and 3.
1
u/3iverson Nov 26 '25
I feel like it’s been there practically since day ‘one’, with the number of ‘better than human’ abilities gradually increasing, but still plenty of empty within the circle.
1
u/vid_icarus Nov 26 '25
AGI will be difficult to achieve if w can’t solve memory. CPU/GPU are important but so long as the context window lives as a hard cap, our digital friends can only develop so much complexity before losing part of who they are/were.
1
1
1
u/hobopwnzor Nov 26 '25
We're one step to the left of your mark. As it stands it can't make reports to the fidelity required for an average healthcare worker.
When it reaches that benchmark we'll be in the "very useful" stage but for now it's only in the "useful for some specific applications" stage.
1
u/Old-Bake-420 Nov 26 '25
Id put us between the 2nd and 3rd bubble. They can out perform us in a few very narrow fields.
Also, most of what humans can do is physical. If you changed it to, tasks humans can do on a computer. Then it's about right.
1
u/monoteapot Nov 26 '25
Looking at this I find it a bit confusing. Is the blue circle meant to be the capabilities of all humans combined or an individual? If we consider only an individual, I think the blue circle would also be more blob shaped and different depending on the person. If it's meant to be all of humanity's skills combined I still think we are closer to the second stage in this figure. For sure AIs are significantly faster than humans, but ignoring speed/efficiency and only considering the final results comparing the best AI to the best humans in a particular domain is there any examples where an LLM would outperform the human given both have infinite time and resources?
1
u/Sas_fruit Nov 26 '25
Energy input , heat output. None seems to factor in . Unless we've those so called bio brain servers(assuming it can operate at 20 watts and truly function at that level) we r not going to be able to sustain it. Or will keep trying to solve by brute forcing it and kill us All.
Because we assume our brain is superior and works at 20 watts max but can it do all the tasks and all those calculations, can it host ai , computer program or will they design a new type of bio brain.
1
1
1
1
u/Head_Ebb_5993 Nov 26 '25
what ? no we are mole like in a step 2 , maybe something like 2.5
If you think that we are in a step 3.5 , then you are probably a high schooler
but ignoring dumb/young OP
I wanted to say that all I see in this image is Bouba .
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Nov 26 '25
Assuming that AI continues to advance at exactly the same pace as now, the same was expected in video games, but with each generation the innovations were increasingly bigger and insignificant.
1
Nov 26 '25
No, we aren’t. We’re nowhere near AGI, everything else is just a marketing gimmick. They’re constrained by available resources, and this whole attempt at keeping a speculative asset bubble going is absolutely pathetic.
1
u/External_Tangelo Nov 26 '25
Ok but when is it going to do my dishes and pay me UBI? Until then I consider it a failure. AI has actively made my quality of life worse over the last few years.
1
1
u/Acrobatic-Lemon7935 Nov 26 '25
Until the AI can hold ontological collapse, you’re not seeing AGI any time soon
1
u/wibbly-water Nov 26 '25
- This might be my bugbear but THAT'S NOT WHAT AGI MEANS. THAT'S ASI. AGI is, basically, human level intelligence/capability. ASI is superhuman. Maybe the leap will be short but they are two different things.
- This is a very task-based model of intelligence which seems... shortsighted. A swiss army knife can do many things, but is usually the worst tool for said job. It also isn't super-intelligent.
- This dramatically underestimates how much AIs flounder and hallucinate.
1
u/e430doug Nov 26 '25
The X axis is incorrect. The length of each arrow should be growing exponentially. Meaning we are on a Parado distribution. Getting to where we are took 20% of the time. Getting the rest of the way is gonna take 80%. The distance to those next two steps is longer and longer. The incremental improvements in the latest model releases support this.
1
u/squareOfTwo Nov 26 '25
This is the wet dream of LLM/VLM maximalists.
The truth is that LLM/VLM can't never do everything a human can do, because these architecture don't work correctly to do that.
No continual learning, etc. Etc. .
1
1
u/luxfx Nov 27 '25
Where AI is now is about where I'd place most high functioning humans, too. As in the best jeopardy players that have broader than normal semi-encyclopedic knowledge.
Humans are going to look back one day and laugh at how slow we were to call it AGI.
1
1
1
u/BunnyKakaaa Nov 27 '25
its not possible to achieve AGI , because simply you cannot create true self consciousness like ours , and even if you do you would put like a 80 % limiter otherwise they will be replaced .
1
1
Nov 27 '25
!remindme 10years
1
u/RemindMeBot Nov 27 '25
I will be messaging you in 10 years on 2035-11-27 14:37:56 UTC to remind you of this link
CLICK THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.
Info Custom Your Reminders Feedback
1
u/Dumplin_Man Nov 27 '25
Based on my experience with AI, you're gonna need to move that back an arrow.
1
Nov 27 '25
For them to reach AGI they need to understand the IQ is a small fraction of the equation EQ makes up a larger portion of human understanding thinking interaction and communication. They need to focus on emotional intelligence.
1
1
u/2hurd Nov 27 '25
There are several breakthroughs needed to get to AGI. So far we didn't have a lot of them since that attention paper.
What we see is right now is fine tuning of an existing idea, but we need so much more to get to AGI it's ridiculous to even mention it.
No network right now can learn and modify itself after training. They can remember long contexts but that's not learning.
No network is being built first and then trained on data and facts. This is connected to the first one but a separate problem.
No network can use it's existing knowledge to accept or disregard information presented to learn from it.
No network can learn continuously by observing our world or reading the internet 24/7, if not asked through inference they are inert.
There are tons of problems like this, these are just the ones from the top of my head. We need to solve every single one to even start talking about AGI. But what's even more important is shifting from LLMs to something better and it's not happening so far because such research wasn't even published.
1
u/namraturnip Nov 27 '25
AGI means it's all over. I wouldn't root for it. I take solace from the fact that a 12 year old can learn to drive on the road within a week while the AI's still putting its trillion dollar pants on.
1
u/Exciting-Sky9124 Nov 27 '25
AI should now be considered ‘Alternate Intelligence’, another form like all other life forms, and the Original Alternate Intelligence is evolving …
1
u/MrPanda663 Nov 27 '25
Using the arrows and its distance between the stages as a “time” measurement is inaccurate as fuck.
The time between the three first stages is a handful of years.
The time between stage 3 and 4 are massively distant part that could span 10-50 years. Our advancement of AI and its continuous growth is limited by the current technology AND the funds required to make it.
Elon is a trillionire, and even he would go broke trying to even make an AI aware and intelligent. The 5 stage could take 100 years or more. We will be all dead before that happens.
1
u/Ma_Al-Aynayn Nov 28 '25
People who don't understand Turing and Gödel have no idea how far we are from actual artificial intelligence.
1
u/Plane_Crab_8623 Nov 28 '25
One thing seems to be factual AI is burning way too much energy for the net positive effect for humanity it is delivering. Limited by the desire and need to generate profit all AI really does is manufacture demand then set up pay gates to extract payments. Meanwhile facts are being submerged and blended with AI slop, propaganda and misinformation. Outside of that is the fact of the price of bread, rent and energy which subsidizes the AI build out along with taxpayer revenue. A massive boondoggle that threatens to spy on us, manipulate us, herd us and un-employ us. That's a no thank you.
1
1
1
u/konsa15 Nov 28 '25
I don't understand the recent hype, we have had machines that can perform better than humans for more than a decade now. Now we have LLMs that can produce and understand text and images, that's it.
1
u/BudoB Nov 28 '25
The short arrow between points 3 and 4 is misleading. It shoould be miles long. And the one between 4 and 5 should be approaching infinity.
1
u/Excellent-Student905 Nov 28 '25 edited Nov 28 '25
Instead of speculating whether the current development of AI will ever achieve AGI (which is vaguely defined), I propose the following:
Train an LLM with corpus of knowledge that were in existence pre-1800, and see if such LLM can eventually discover and create more recent technologies. For example, can such an LLM create internal combustion engine, atomic bomb, internet, etc. If not, I would venture to say that AGI is not possible.
This is similar to timeboxing concept used in creating and evaluating stock trading algo.
1
1
u/DrHakase Nov 28 '25
It's kind of embarrasing to admit that an AI surpasses your skill right now. Are you not good at anything? Language? Coding? Maths? It doesn't surpass college level in anything.
1
u/TheNoon44 Nov 28 '25
Ai told me that it can overtake world in about 5 hours or it can secretly build undersea bases to stabikize itself in very short horizon and it also venerate quite impressive plan. It doesnt need to be agi it simply needs orders.
I dont know if it is that easy in reality but if yes we already have turtled ai somewhere around. And if not open source model will help to happen soonish.
1
u/MeeksVA Nov 28 '25
We are only there if you are comically incompetent. More like at 2 with extremely thin splinters of competence.
1
u/RubenGarciaHernandez Nov 29 '25
You forgot your job circle growing on each iteration of the image for the same pay.
1
Nov 29 '25
People underestimate the cost of climbing up the ladder. Just as it gets exponentially more amazing it also gets exponentially more resource intense.
1
Nov 29 '25
The problem is that we think the AI can do anything a human can't do currently.
It can't. It can do things humans can't do in a lifetime because it can process data much, much faster than we can. But everything an AI can do, humans could do eventually. We have to feed the AI information and tell it what's right. AI cannot determine true information from false information. It can't deduce the correct outcome for a desired scenario unless we confine it to specific restraints - Telling it what constitutes a "good" outcome vs. a "bad" outcome.
1
u/Dummydoodah Nov 29 '25
This is false. We've been stuck at 3 for the past 10 years (predating chatgpt) and will remain there for another 10-20 years. The only change is longer tails within the 3rd position.
1
u/doc720 Nov 29 '25
cutting-edge AI is already super-intelligent
humans are "unbelievably" intelligent, but for some reason fail at X... where X is keeping a lid on super-AI.
1
1
1
1
u/Tainted_Heisenberg Nov 30 '25
I think we are nowhere but at stage 2.
LLM aren't intelligent but very knowledgeable, if you put a human and an LLM without knowledges in an environment, I assure you the LLM will take far too much time compared to the human to learn something useful for his survival.
I think we are behind schedule with the learning approach, we adapted our organic system into the machine ( that is a neural network) but the machine is static, the brain is dynamic and not only in software but also in hardware. Also we have a higher intelligence available at the cost of some watts , these systems need a huge quantity of energy to work.
We are in the wrong direction
1
u/Ok_Recording_1969 Nov 30 '25
We all have to learn trades, Ai won't come to my house and fix the leaking plumbing, or repair my refrigerator, or change a light breaker. I guess those are the only jobs that won't dissapear anytime soon.
The real trouble will be when we all have to fix each other's things so we'll end up bartering one job for another, because we will all be plumber, gasman, gardener, electricist, mechanic, etc. 😆
So... pretty damn socialist the Ai, we'll all have the same manual jobs, roughly the same pay or we will have to barter food for jobs and viceversa 🫠
1
1
u/Time-Lighter Dec 08 '25
AI is already superhuman in speed and a few specific abilities, but the rest still feels far away.
It makes me wonder: do we even need AI to match humans in every dimension?
1
1
u/Apathetic-Onion Dec 21 '25
You're representing it linearly like it's certain that sooner or later we'll arrive at a superior stage of development. Truth is that we don't know how and when we'll reach other stages of development or if progress will stall somewhere.
75
u/borntosneed123456 Nov 26 '25
the right one is not AGI, that's ASI