Waymo exists. Frankly, that rollout is only just really starting in earnest is not really much of a defense of such a comment.

They're changing the order (and removing a layer of complexity) by using an earlier part of their model to calculate skill use later. It could certainly lead to further improvements in either efficiency or potentially transfer learning down the line.

Kind of and not really. Basically it's about where in the series of tasks they figure out what skill to use.

Basically it appears they've applied found a way to calculate similarity to figure out what skill to apply to downstream tasks. Yes though, I wound up clicking through to the paper.

This is kind of a what it says on the tin case, basically one of the biggest problems being tackled in this field is successfully targeting and integrating treatments. As a result, even if this method turns out to be problematic down the line, it has a better than average chance of being significant.

Normally I'd raise an eyebrow and wonder if we never heard of this again or if it became an integral technology, but given the 'delivery, delivery, delivery' mantra we see in the area this could be more likely to be significant than most.

I'd be interested in this too - so far your responses seem to be either short, or from people citing something other than when they joined though. You might try going back and reading through the old yearly prediction threads though, I found them interesting in some ways.

​

I've only been here since around last Christmas, and the only real changes are a slight update closer on weak AGI, and an acknowledgement we're likely to see the ramp up the singularity before volitional AGI.

I feel as if I read that they didn't intend to release it publicly any time soon with the usual 'risks' bit. Minute. Yes, it was from Ars Technica.

​

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/10/googles-newest-ai-generator-creates-hd-video-from-text-prompts/

Would pill printing fall within that range? I'm not really entirely sure as to what you're looking for here honestly, but I have regretted the relative lack of progress in the area.

Neural Radiance Fields, basically a way to turn image(s) into 3D views.

Models it appears, plural. I'd actually be more interested in an open source foundational LLM from them honestly. Unsure if this implies that or not.

My 'cautiously optimistic' ballpark is to pay attention to De Grey's 2035 claim and expect it sometime in that decade. This is partially however due to how long adoption takes in this area due to regulations/testing.

Honestly, that post should still be pinned. I enjoy reading updates/new thoughts on this. I could swear there was a discussion a while ago on doing more such threads in fact.

Yes, that and the dataset misses (most notably with MATH) make me think this is going to surprise even people tracking the field.

​

Honestly we're due for another major LLM drop soon, it's easy to get lost in all the other stuff, but it's mostly been focused elsewhere.

In terms of weak AGI (broadly meeting human level on benchmarks) by 2025. I think people tend to either underestimate progress in this area, or consider AGI from a different perspective than simply broad human level performance.

Good question. My timelines for this are much slower than for AGI, simply because I don't see a lot of progress being made (or focus on it), but there have been a lot of arguments for emergent intelligence. I still tend to think we won't see this until we actually start attempting to develop it, but I don't really think we can rule it out either way.

I'm one of the early predictors of AGI, and I still don't expect a rapid takeoff - even if we do something in a lab, it doesn't mean broad adoption has been achieved and further the benefits from creating such things have to cycle through the economy. I will note though that modern predictions have been consistently more pessimistic than results (see ML surveys by Bostrom et al, or various predicted benchmarks such as the big MATH dataset miss).

​

This all said, earlier responses to you are right - the modern take on education is unhealthy. It used to be acknowledge that an educated populace was a public good in and of itself. Continued learning should be undertaken simply to improve yourself (and the world around you).