I'm baffled neurosymbolic hasn't been attempted with a huge budget like OpenAI. You've got these two fields, with one you see it can work really precisely but breaks down at fuzziness, scaling and going beyond the rules. With the other you get almost exactly the opposites.

It seems like such a no brainer to make a huge effort trying to combine these in large ways...

Actually, because of a lack of a real commonly agreed upon understanding of what makes general intelligence there is a tiny chance a loner might crack the problem. It's quite unlikely though.

The sewer scenario might happen after the singularity, though, once the core problem is solved and individuals are tinkering away at small projects for various purposes...

Yet one less workout excuse gone...

Maybe one of the future GPTs can find a way to finally make Windows fast. Probably too tough of a task, though, even for AGI.

Yes, this if the key question. If I'd build such a website I'd try to implement some ways to categorize the crowd. "30% expert, 50% enthusiast, 20% hobbyist" or something like that... Of course getting any kind of certainty on that would be hard, but it turns out if you actually ask nicely and with a time of seriosity most people just tell the truth, so maybe even not.

This notion is similar to Richard Dawkins intentionally being an atheist despite acknowledging that agnosticism is actually closer to the truth for utilitarian reasons.

I take issue with this general approach, since I think it would be better to work on the root cause ( nobody taking action if it's not wrongfully called a disease ), but in this case I'm way more willing to let that imperfection go than in Dawkins's case.

To the people here arguing with personal contacts about this I suggest carefulness.

The reason many people ( especially older ) argue with things like "boring" or "necessary" might be of protective nature. They might have constructed a well working coping mechanism, in which case good arguments for aging being solved eventually might hurt them!

So if you don't know that person is especially equanimous it'd be well advised to think hard before going down that route...

As for aging as a disease, I don't think disease fits the bill exactly here.

If you think about what some things we call disease do in the body, which is mainly carrying out processes that aren't intended in a normal "biological machine" ( as per normal version of genetics or normal state of functioning ) , then aging is different. It's more like the wear and tear of a car, where you can restore original functionality through maintenance or through changing the car in a way that doesn't cause wear and tear. So it's more like taking care of or lifting respectively fundamental limitations.

Fixable, yes, disease, no, I'd say.

FWIK he's quite openly admitted to not following a particularly healthy diet, because he got genetically lucky.

Imo he might be underestimating the effects of diet. Look at how different David Sinclair and him look ( apparent age wise ). Only 6 years difference. And look at how much less different they looked 10 years ago. Sinclair is of course endorsing the dietary role much more.

Then again, apparent age isn't everything...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DHvoPlcWwg4&t=67m

Timestamped. He's talking about some new drug possibly effectively poisoning 90% of types of cancer cells...

Could be. On altos labs landing page I noticed a surprising lack of the word "age", lol.

It's relevant to mention here that Sinclair is on a different train than De Grey. He thinks getting to 150 years is possible in a reasonable time frame. De Grey thinks LEV is possibly and subsequently functional immortality.

So maybe ignoring this factor reduces the potential quite a bit.

Have heard Aubrey de Grey mention this yesterday in a podcast I believe. He said he's most excited about this for cancer.

Have I missed something?

There hasn't been released a model which can reliably produce lengthy, good and consistent videos yet, say a music video for a rapper that doesn't need an edit time comparable to just producing the video manually.

And now this guy is talking about movies? Seems like a bit of a jump to me. Although not impossible he must have discovered something tremendous, eureka worthy.

Would have been cool if it had actually continued the calculation beyond the overflow and printed the past date. But the math part would probably be a problem.

Between the lines I read the assumption that "guess the next word" is definitely agreed upon as being part of or precessor of future AGI, when that's actually highly unclear. Right now they're standing in front of the brick wall of lack of actual reasoning and therefore highly inconsistent emulated reasoning. And it's not clear that's susceptible to a fix or workaround. It could actually be a fundamental limitation of the architecture.

It's the underestimation. The thing is, for some reason AGI seems like an approachable problem on first sight. There's something about it that makes you think there has to be some simple, yet surprisingly undiscovered way of building it.

But if and when you actually try to build something, no matter how naive or small, you very quickly recognize the incredible hidden complexity.

I've tried it too, I admit. You go from "I think it's doable" to "hell no, this isn't ever gonna work" in a couple of hours, lol.

Yes, the inventing part can be incredibly funny. Just recently it had me fooled completely. It was making up believable functions like there's no tomorrow. "updateTargetValue", "reverseDirection". Lmao.

Yes, that's what I came to conclude early on when reading about this for coding.

One thing it's really, really good for though is providing a context sensitive solution ( sometimes ) to give you a head start.

When this video technology has matured I'll hopefully enjoy AI 80s films as much as the human made ones.

Isn't the major problem with cellular reprogramming accidental introduction of fatal side effects like cancer? I haven't been reading much about this topic, though.

Well, remember that author is talking about the potential success of one of the more targeted treatments, e.g. the senolytics drugs for macular degeneration, which would pave the way for future complimentary drug development to one day cover most of what's causing aging. He doesn't mean "signs of ultimate anti aging drug end of 2023".

And if one has read a bit into the topic, one knows that the aging process is mostly understood in this way aswell, e.g. by Aubrey de Grey.

I highly doubt this validation route would go nearly as smooth as the path hereto. I mean the very root cause for GPT messing up so often and in such strange ways is that there's no real reasoning there, only surprisingly well working emulation of reasoning.

However, for validation this emulated reasoning won't nearly cut it. So you end up where you started : finding architectures that can actually reason, which of course nobody knows...

If you were thinking about something like trying to match its responses to similar "actual" search results and then validating via comparison to that : What mechanism to use? Because this seems to require actual reasoning aswell.

Bicentennial man 2

That seems great.

All these uses of "biobots" beg the question how much one can actually cover with these. Can enough mastery over them be gained to command them to do everything we want them to do to our bodies? Targeting any disease? Aging?

Of course putting the cart before the horse would be failing to acknowledge the root causes for these diseases will need to be figured out first...

Tbh, picking on the FSD zealots always seemed short-sighted to me as it seems likely that FSD actually requires AGI ( which for some definitions would set off a singularity ).

Also, your pareto take on the progress assessment isn't telling the whole story imo. Not everything requires vertical solving until the end; sometimes exploring the map further gets you a huge leap, which can change the outlook quickly.

That said, I agree current systems really don't look like they're gonna get us our Datas and C3POs, or even Jarvises...