this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2025

129 points (96.4% liked)

Futurology

3393 readers

2 users here now

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

129

Game over. AGI is not imminent, and LLMs are not the royal road to getting there. (garymarcus.substack.com)

submitted 2 weeks ago by RewindAgain to c/futurology

70 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] SeizeTheBeans@hexbear.net 29 points 2 weeks ago (17 children)

"AI" was just a marketing term to hype LLM's anyway. The AI in your favorite computer game wasn't any less likely to gain self awareness than LLM's were or are, and anyone who looked seriously at what they were from the start and wasn't invested (literally financially, if not emotionally) in hyping these things up, knew it was obvious that LLM's were not and never would be the road to AGI. They're just glorified chatbots, to use a common but accurate phrase. It's good to see some of the hypsters are finally admitting this too I suppose, now that the bubble popping is imminent.

There are plenty of things to be concerned with as far as LLM's go, but they all have to do with social reasons, like how our capitalist overlords want to force reliance on them, and use them to control, punish, and replace labor. It was never a reasonable concern that they were taking us down the path to Skynet or the spooky Singularity.

[–] m532@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 2 weeks ago

I'd differentiate between intelligence and sentience here. Artificial intelligence is pretty much exactly what neural networks are. But life and sentience are two features that differentiate humans and animals from machines. Intelligence is a powerful tool, but its not uniquely human.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Personally, in all fairness at one point I thought that maybe human intelligence might turn out to be pattern matching (which is what Neural Networks, the technology used in LLMs, do very well) - I wasn't cheering for LLMs, but I did dare hope.

At this point I think LLMs have shown beyond doubt that detecting patterns and generating content according to said patterns doesn't at all add up to intelligence.

No doubt other things in the broader Machine Learning universe will keep on being used for very specific and well defined situations where all you need is pattern detection, but by themselves will never lead us to AGI, IMHO.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

awareness than LLM’s were or are, and anyone who looked seriously at what they were from the start and wasn’t invested (literally financially, if not emotionally) in hyping these things up, knew it was obvious that LLM’s were not and never would be the road to AGI.

It was a total blackbox that absorbed common sense knowledge which had been coveted in AI for a half-century, and that kept passing new tests as it scaled up. It was not obvious it would stop getting smarter. I have no financial interest in LLMs, I don't use them much and I fully expect they're as good as they'll get, now.

Comparing it to a videogame AI is nonsense. How much do you know about the inner workings involved?

load more comments (14 replies)

[–] Perspectivist@feddit.uk 16 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)

An asteroid impact not being imminent doesn’t really make me feel any better when the asteroid is still hurtling toward us. My concern about AGI has never been about the timescale - it’s the fact that we know it’s coming, and almost no one seems to take the repercussions seriously.

[–] justOnePersistentKbinPlease@fedia.io 40 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

LLMs are a dead end to AGI. They do not reason or understand in any way. They only mimic it.

It is the same technology now as 20 years ago with the first chatbots. Just LLMs have models approaching a Trillion items instead of a few thousand.

[–] Perspectivist@feddit.uk 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I haven't said a word about LLMs.

[–] justOnePersistentKbinPlease@fedia.io 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

They are the closest things to AI that we have. The so called LRMs fake their reasoning.

They do not think or reason. We are at the very best decades away from anything resembling an AI.

The best LLMs can do is a mass effect(1) VI and that is still more than a decade away

[–] Perspectivist@feddit.uk 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The chess opponent on Atari is AI - we’ve had AI systems for decades.

An asteroid impact being decades away doesn’t make it any less concerning. My worries about AGI aren’t about the timescale, but about its inevitability.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] m532@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

No, the first chatbots didn't have neural networks inside. They didn't have intelligence.

[–] booty@hexbear.net 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children)

LLMs aren't intelligence. We've had similar technology in more primitive forms for a long time, like Markov chains. LLMs are hyper specialized at passing a turing test but are not good at basically anything else.

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] gbzm@piefed.social 17 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

At the risk of sounding like I've been living under a rock, how do we know it's coming, exactly?

[–] Perspectivist@feddit.uk 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

We’ll keep incrementally improving our technology, and unless we - or some outside force - destroy us first, we’ll get there eventually.

We already know that general intelligence is possible, because humans are generally intelligent. There’s no reason to assume that what our brains do couldn’t be replicated artificially.

At some point, unless something stops us, we’ll create an artificially intelligent system that’s as intelligent as we are. From that moment on, we’re no longer needed to improve it further - it will make a better version of itself, which will make an even better version, and so on. Eventually, we’ll find ourselves in the presence of something vastly more intelligent than us - and the idea of “outsmarting” it becomes completely incoherent. That’s an insanely dangerous place for humanity to end up in.

We're growing a tiger puppy. It's still small and cute today but it's only a matter of time untill it gets big and strong.

[–] gbzm@piefed.social 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

What if human levels of intelligence requires building something that is so close in its mechanisms to a human brain that it's indistinguishable from a brain, or a complete physical and chemical simulation of a brain? What if the input-output "training" required to make it work in any comprehensible way is so close in fullness and complexity to the human sensory perception system interacting with the world, that it ends up being indistinguishable from a human body or a complete physical simulation of a body, with its whole environment?

There's no reason to assume our brains or their mechanisms can't be replicated artificially, but there's also no reason to assume it can be made practical, or that because we can make it it can self-replicate at no cost in terms of material resources, or refine its own formula. Humans have human-level intelligence, and they've never successfully created anything as intelligent as them.

I'm not saying it won't happen, mind you, I'm just saying it's not a certainty. Plenty of things are impossible, or sufficiently impractical that humans - or any species - may never create it.

[–] thevoidzero@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

This is what I think might be more reasonable to do. Even with a very strong capabilities of reason, I think we might have to train the AGI like how we train children. It'll take time as they interact through the environment not just read a bunch of data on the internet that comes from a various sources and might not lead into a coherent direction on how someone should live their life, or act.

This way might make better AGI that are actually closer to human in variations on how they act compared to rapid training on the same data. Because having the diversity of thoughts and discussions are what leads into better outcomes in many situations.

[–] m532@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago

This is like that "only planets that are 100% exactly like earth can create life, because the only life we know is on earth" backward reasoning

[–] crazycraw@crazypeople.online 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

well we often equate predictions around AGI with ASI and a singularity event, which has been predicted for decades based on several aspects of computing over the years; advancing hardware, software, throughput and then of course neuroscience.

ASI is more of a prediction of the capabilities where even imitating intelligence with enough presence will give rise to tangible, real higher intelligence after a few iterations, then doing so on its own then doing improvements. once those improvements are beyond human capability, we have our singularity.

back to just AGI, it seems to be achievable based on mimicking the processing power of a human mind, which isn't currently possible, but we are steadily working toward it and have achieved some measures of success. we may decide that certain aspects of artifical intelligence are reached prior to that, but IMO it feels like we're only a few years away.

[–] gbzm@piefed.social 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Alright. I had already seen that stuff and I've never seen really convincing arguments for these predictions beyond pretty sci-fi-esque speculation.
I'm not at all convinced we have anything even remotely resembling "mimicking the processing power of a human mind", either through material simulation of a complete brain and the multi sensorial interactions with an environment to let it grow into a functioning mind, or the party tricks we tend to call AI these days (which boil down to Chinese Rooms built with thousands of GPU's worth of piecewise linear regressions, and that are unable to reason or even generalize beyond their training distributions according to the source).
I guess embedding cultivated neurons on microchips could maybe make new things possible, but even then I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out making a human-level intelligence ended up requiring building an actual whole ass human, or at least most of one. Seeing where we are with that stuff, I would rather surmise a time scale in the decades to centuries, if at all. Which could very well be longer than the time climate changes leaves us with the required levels of industry to even attempt it.

[–] Perspectivist@feddit.uk 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Can you think of a reason why we wouldn’t ever get there? We know it’s possible - our brains can do it. Our brains are made of matter, and so are computers.

The timescale isn’t the important part - it’s the apparent inevitability of it.

[–] gbzm@piefed.social 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

I've given reasons. We can imagine Dyson Spheres, and we know it's possible. It doesn't mean we can actually build them or ever will be able to.

The fact that our brains are able to do stuff that we don't even know how they do doesn't necessarily mean rocks can. If it somehow requires the complexity of biology, depending on how much of this complexity it requires it could just end up meaning creating a fully fledged human, which we can already do, and it hasn't caused a singularity because creating a human costs resources even when we do it the natural way.

[–] Perspectivist@feddit.uk 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I don’t see any reason to assume substrate dependence either, since we already have narrowly intelligent, non-biological systems that are superhuman within their specific domains. I’m not saying it’s inconceivable that there’s something uniquely mysterious about the biological brain that’s essential for true general intelligence - it just seems highly unlikely to me.

[–] gbzm@piefed.social 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

The thing is I'm not assuming substrate dependence. I'm not saying there's something uniquely mysterious about the biological brain, I'm saying what we know about "intelligence" right now is that it's an emergent property observed in brains that have been in interaction with a physical and natural environment through complex sensory feedback loops, materialized by the rest of the human body. This is substrate independent, but the only thing that rocks can do for sure is simulate this whole system, and good simulations of complicated systems are not an easy feat at all, and it's not at all certain that we ever be able to do it without it requiring too much resources for it to be worth the hassle.

The things we've done that most closely resemble human intelligence in computers are very drastic oversimplifications of how biological brains work, sprinkled with mathematical translations of actual cognitive processes. And right now they appear very limited, even though a lot of resources - physical and economic - have been injected into them. We don't understand how brains work enough to refine this simplification very well, and we don't know much about the formation of cognitive processes relevant to "intelligence" either. Yet you assert it's a certainty that we will, that we will encode it in computers, and that the result will have a bunch of properties of current software, easily copyable and editable (which the human-like intelligences we know are not at all), not requiring more power than is output by the Sun, (which humans don't, but they're completely different physical systems), etc.

The same arguments you're making could be made to say, in 1969 after the moon landing, that the human race will definitely colonize the whole solar system. We know it's possible so it will happen at some point is not how technology works, it also needs to be profitable enough for enough industry to be injected in the problem to solve it, and for the result to live up to profitability expectations. Right now no AI firm is even remotely profitable, and the resources in the Kuiper belt or the real estate on Mars aren't enough of an argument that our rockets can reach them, there's no telling that they will ever be ; our economies might well simply lose interest before then.

[–] Perspectivist@feddit.uk 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I’m not claiming that AGI will necessarily be practical or profitable by human standards - just that, given enough time and uninterrupted progress, it’s hard to see how it wouldn’t happen.

The core of my argument isn’t about funding or feasibility in the short term, it’s about inevitability in the long term. Once you accept that intelligence is a physical process and that we’re capable of improving the systems that simulate it, the only thing that can stop us from reaching AGI eventually is extinction or total collapse.

So, sure - maybe it’s not 10 years away. Maybe not 100. But if humanity keeps inventing, iterating, and surviving, I don’t see a natural stopping point before we get there.

[–] gbzm@piefed.social 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I get it, the core of your argument is given enough time it will happen, which isn't saying much: given infinite time anything will happen. Even extinction and total collapse aren't enough, infinite time means a thinking computer will just emerge fully formed from quantum fluctuations.

But you're voicing it as though it's a certain direction of human technological progress which is frankly untrue. You've just concocted a scenario for technological progress in your head by extrapolating from the current state of it, and you present it as a certainty. But anyone can do the same for equally credible scenarios without AGI. For instance, if the only way to avoid total collapse is to stabilize energy consumption and demographic growth and we somehow manage it, then if making rocks think costs 10^20W and the entire world's labour, then it will not ever happen in any meaningful sense of the word "ever".

PS - to elaborate a bit on that "meaningful sense of the word ever" bit, I don't want to nitpick but some time scales do make asteroid impacts irrelevant. The Sun will engulf the earth in about 5 billion years. Then there's the heat death of the universe. In computing problems you get millions of years popping here and there for problems that feel like they should be easy

[–] Perspectivist@feddit.uk 1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

In my view, we’re heavily incentivized to develop AGI because of the enormous potential benefits - economic, scientific, and military. That’s exactly what worries me. We’re sprinting toward it without having solved the serious safety and control problems that would come with it.

I can accept that the LLM approach might be a dead end, or that building AGI could be far harder than we think. But to me, that doesn’t change the core issue. AGI represents a genuine civilization-level existential risk. Even if the odds of it going badly are small, the stakes are too high for that to be comforting.

Given enough time, I think we’ll get there - whether that’s in 2 years or 200. The timescale isn’t the problem; inevitability is. And frankly, I don’t think we’ll ever be ready for it. Some doors just shouldn’t be opened, no matter how curious or capable we become.

[–] silasmariner@programming.dev 1 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

Honestly I agree with gbzm here. 'I can't see why I shouldn't be possible' is a far cry from 'it's inevitable'... And I'd hardly say we're sprinting towards it, either. There are, in my view, dozens of absurdly difficult problems, any one of which may be insoluble, that stands between us and agi. Anyone telling you otherwise is selling something or already bought in ;)

Ppl definitely are selling natural language interfaces as if they're intelligent. It's convincing, I guess, to some. It's an illusion though

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] m532@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago

What does replicating humans have to do with the singularity?

I'd argue the industrial revolution was the singularity. And if it wasn't that, it would be computers.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Lugh 5 points 2 weeks ago

Yes, and there is also the possibility that it could be upon us quite suddenly. It may just take one fundamental breakthrough to make the leap from what we have currently to AGI, and once that breakthrough is achieved, AGI could arrive quite quickly. It may not be a linear process of improvement, where we reach the summit in many years.

[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

we don't know it's coming. What leads you to believe that? the countless times that they promised thea'd fixed their problems which invariably turned out to be bullshit?

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] NuraShiny@hexbear.net 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Do we know it's coming? by what evidence? I don't see it.

Far as I can tell, we are more likely to discover how to genetically uplift other life to intelligence then we are to making computers actually think.

[–] Perspectivist@feddit.uk 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I wrote a response to this same question to another user.

[–] NuraShiny@hexbear.net 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Where? I don't see it.

[–] Perspectivist@feddit.uk 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

We’ll keep incrementally improving our technology, and unless we - or some outside force - destroy us first, we’ll get there eventually.

We already know that general intelligence is possible, because humans are generally intelligent. There’s no reason to assume that what our brains do couldn’t be replicated artificially.

At some point, unless something stops us, we’ll create an artificially intelligent system that’s as intelligent as we are. From that moment on, we’re no longer needed to improve it further - it will make a better version of itself, which will make an even better version, and so on. Eventually, we’ll find ourselves in the presence of something vastly more intelligent than us - and the idea of “outsmarting” it becomes completely incoherent. That’s an insanely dangerous place for humanity to end up in.

We’re growing a tiger puppy. It’s still small and cute today but it’s only a matter of time untill it gets big and strong.

[–] NuraShiny@hexbear.net 5 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

There are limits to technology. Why would we assume infinite growth of technology, when nothing else we have is infinite? It's not like the wheel is getting more round over time. We made it out of better materials, but it still has limits to it's utility. All our computers are computing 1s and 0s and adding more of those per seocnd does not seem to do anything to make them smarter.

I would worry about ecological collapse a lot more then this that's for sure. That's something that current shitty non-smart AI can achieve if they keep making data centers and drinking ourwater.

[–] Perspectivist@feddit.uk 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I don’t see any reason to assume humans are anywhere near the far end of the intelligence spectrum. We already have narrow-intelligence systems that are superhuman in specific domains. I don’t think comparing intelligence to something like a wheel is fair - there are clear geometric limits to how round a wheel can be, but I’ve yet to hear any comparable explanation for why similar limits should exist for intelligence. It doesn’t need to be infinitely intelligent either - just significantly more so than we are.

Also, as I said earlier - unless some other catastrophe destroys us before we get there. That doesn’t conflict with what I said, nor does it give me any peace of mind. It’s simply my personal view that AGI or ASI is the number one existential risk we face.

[–] NuraShiny@hexbear.net 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Okay, granted. But if we are on the stupid side of the equation, why would we be able to make something smarter then us? One does not follow from the other.

I also disagree that we have made anything that is actually intelligent. A computer can do math billions of times faster then a human can, but doing math is not smarts. Without human intervention and human input, the computer would just idle and do nothing. That is not intelligence. At no point has code shown the ability to self-improve and grow and the current brand of shitAI is no different. They call what they do to it training, but it's really just telling it how to weigh the reams of data it's eating and without humans, it would not do even that.

Ravens and Octopi can solve quite complex puzzles. Are they intelligent? What is even the cutoff for intelligence? We don't even have a good definition for what intelligence is that encompasses everything. People cite IQ, which is obviously bunk. People try to section it into several types of intelligence, social, logical and so on. If we don't even know what the objective definition of intelligence is, I am not worried about us creating it from whole cloth.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] FortifiedAttack@hexbear.net 3 points 2 weeks ago

Except there is no such asteroid and techbros have driven themselves into a frenzy over a phantom.

The real threat to humanity is runaway climate change, which techbros conveniently don't give a single fuck about, since they use gigawatts of power to train bigger and bigger models with further and further diminishing returns.

[–] MotoAsh@piefed.social 2 points 2 weeks ago

Greed blinds all

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

equally, AGI could be as baked-in a limitation as exceeding the speed of light or time travel - any model that includes it has to put a lot into fictional solutions that have no bearing on current reality.

[–] Perspectivist@feddit.uk 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

General intelligence isn't a theoretical concept though. Human brain can do it quite efficiently.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments