Comment on Don’t believe the hype: AGI is far from inevitable
zygo_histo_morpheus@programming.dev 2 months agoA breakthrough in quantum computing wouldn’t necessarily help. QC isn’t faster than classical computing in the general case, it just happens to be for a few specific algorithms (e.g. factoring numbers). It’s not impossible that a QC breakthrough might speed up training AI models (although to my knowledge we don’t have any reason to believe that it would) and maybe that’s what you’re referring to, but there’s a widespread misconception that Quantum computers are essentially non-deterministic turing machines that “evaluate all possible states at the same time” which isn’t the case.
ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 2 months ago
I was more hinting at that through conventional computational means we’re just not getting there, and that some completely hypothetical breakthrough somewhere is required. QC is the best guess I have for where it might be but it’s still far-fetched.
But yes, you’re absolutely right that QC in general isn’t a magic bullet here.
zygo_histo_morpheus@programming.dev 2 months ago
Yeah thought that might be the case! It’s just a thing that a lot of people have misconceptions about so it’s something that I have a bit of a knee jerk reaction to.
ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 2 months ago
Haha it’s good that you do though, because now there’s a helpful comment providing more context :)
Umbrias@beehaw.org 2 months ago
the limitation is specifically using the primary machine learning technique, same one all chatbots use at places claiming to pursue agi, which is statistical imitation, is np-hard.
ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 2 months ago
Not just that, they’ve proven it’s not possible using any tractable algorithm. If it were you’d run into a contradiction. Their example uses basically any machine learning algorithm we know, but the proof generalizes.
Umbrias@beehaw.org 2 months ago
via statistical imitation. other methods, such as solving and implementing by first principles analytically, has not been shown to be np hard. the difference is important but the end result is still no agigpt in the foreseeable and unforeseeable future.