When pushed proponents don’t actually defend the position that a large enough transformer will create nanotech
Can you expand on what you mean by “create nanotech?” If improvements to our current photolithography techniques count, I would not be surprised if (scaffolded) LLMs could be useful for that. Likewise for getting bacteria to express polypeptide catalysts for useful reactions, and even maybe figure out how to chain several novel catalysts together to produce something useful (again, referring to scaffolded LLMs with access to tools).
If you mean that LLMs won’t be able to bootstrap from our current “nanotech only exists in biological systems and chip fabs” world to Drexler-style nanofactories, I agree with that, but I expect things will get crazy enough that I can’t predict them long before nanofactories are a thing (if they ever are).
or even obsolete their job
Likewise, I don’t think LLMs can immediately obsolete all of the parts of my job. But they sure do make parts of my job a lot easier. If you have 100 workers that each spend 90% of their time on one specific task, and you automate that task, that’s approximately as useful as fully automating the jobs of 90 workers. “Human-equivalent” is one of those really leaky abstractions—I would be pretty surprised if the world had any significant resemblance to the world of today by the time robotic systems approached the dexterity and sensitivity of human hands for all of the tasks we use our hands for, whereas for the task of “lift heavy stuff” or “go really fast” machines left us in the dust long ago.
Iterative improvements on the timescale we’re likely to see are still likely to be pretty crazy by historical standards. But yeah, if your timelines were “end of the world by 2026” I can see why they’d be lengthening now.
My timelines were not 2026. In fact, I made bets against doomers 2-3 years ago, one will resolve by next year.
I agree iterative improvements are significant. This falls under “naive extrapolation of scaling laws”.
By nanotech I mean something akin to drexlerian nanotech or something similarly transformative in the vicinity. I think it is plausible that a true ASI will be able to make rapid progress (perhaps on the order of a few years or a decade) on nanotech.
I suspect that people that don’t take this as a serious possibility haven’t really thought through what AGI/ASI means + what the limits and drivers of science and tech really are; I suspect they are simply falling prey to status-quo bias.
Can you expand on what you mean by “create nanotech?” If improvements to our current photolithography techniques count, I would not be surprised if (scaffolded) LLMs could be useful for that. Likewise for getting bacteria to express polypeptide catalysts for useful reactions, and even maybe figure out how to chain several novel catalysts together to produce something useful (again, referring to scaffolded LLMs with access to tools).
If you mean that LLMs won’t be able to bootstrap from our current “nanotech only exists in biological systems and chip fabs” world to Drexler-style nanofactories, I agree with that, but I expect things will get crazy enough that I can’t predict them long before nanofactories are a thing (if they ever are).
Likewise, I don’t think LLMs can immediately obsolete all of the parts of my job. But they sure do make parts of my job a lot easier. If you have 100 workers that each spend 90% of their time on one specific task, and you automate that task, that’s approximately as useful as fully automating the jobs of 90 workers. “Human-equivalent” is one of those really leaky abstractions—I would be pretty surprised if the world had any significant resemblance to the world of today by the time robotic systems approached the dexterity and sensitivity of human hands for all of the tasks we use our hands for, whereas for the task of “lift heavy stuff” or “go really fast” machines left us in the dust long ago.
Iterative improvements on the timescale we’re likely to see are still likely to be pretty crazy by historical standards. But yeah, if your timelines were “end of the world by 2026” I can see why they’d be lengthening now.
My timelines were not 2026. In fact, I made bets against doomers 2-3 years ago, one will resolve by next year.
I agree iterative improvements are significant. This falls under “naive extrapolation of scaling laws”.
By nanotech I mean something akin to drexlerian nanotech or something similarly transformative in the vicinity. I think it is plausible that a true ASI will be able to make rapid progress (perhaps on the order of a few years or a decade) on nanotech. I suspect that people that don’t take this as a serious possibility haven’t really thought through what AGI/ASI means + what the limits and drivers of science and tech really are; I suspect they are simply falling prey to status-quo bias.