Some have been saying this for years now, but the consensus in the AI community and SV has been visibly shifting in the recent months.
Social contagion is astonishingly potent around ideas like this one, and this probably explains why the zeitgeist seems to be immovable for a time and then suddenly change.
While I think there's obvious merit to their skepticism over the race towards agi, Sutskever's goal doesn't seem practical to me. As Dwarkesh also said, we reach to a safe and eventually perfect system by deploying it in public and iterating over it until optimal convergence dictated by users in a free market. Hence, I trust that Google, OpenAI or Anthropic will reach there, not SSI.
Some have been saying this for years now, but the consensus in the AI community and SV has been visibly shifting in the recent months.
Social contagion is astonishingly potent around ideas like this one, and this probably explains why the zeitgeist seems to be immovable for a time and then suddenly change.
While I think there's obvious merit to their skepticism over the race towards agi, Sutskever's goal doesn't seem practical to me. As Dwarkesh also said, we reach to a safe and eventually perfect system by deploying it in public and iterating over it until optimal convergence dictated by users in a free market. Hence, I trust that Google, OpenAI or Anthropic will reach there, not SSI.
Why is Yann Lecun in same article as Ilya?
I can't tell if you meant this as a slight on Ilya Sutskever or on Yann LeCun. Both are well-known names in AI.
Pretty sure the article is AI slop, so it's kind of connect the dots
Ilya has appeared to shift to closer to Yann's position, though: he's been on the "scaling LLMs will fail to reach AGI" beat for a long time.