Technology

Misleading title. From the article,

Asked whether "scaling up" current AI approaches could lead to achieving artificial general intelligence (AGI), or a general purpose AI that matches or surpasses human cognition, an overwhelming 76 percent of respondents said it was "unlikely" or "very unlikely" to succeed.

In no way does this imply that the "industry is pouring billions into a dead end". AGI isn't even needed for industry applications, just implementing current-level agentic systems will be more than enough to have massive industrial impact.

I used to support an IVA cluster. Now the only thing I use AI for is voice controls to set timers on my phone.

LLMs are good for learning, brainstorming, and mundane writing tasks.

I went to CES this year and I sat on a few ai panels. This is actually not far off. Some said yah this is right but multiple panels I went to said that this is a dead end, and while usefull they are starting down different paths.

Its not bad, just we are finding it's nor great.

LLMs are fundamentally limited, the only interesting application with them is research more or less. There are some practical applications, but those are already being used in industry today, so meh.

Whether or not it's a dead end, is questionable, because scientific research is often met with many a dead end, that's just how it is.

I think the first llm that introduces a good personality will be the winner. I don't care if the AI seems deranged and seems to hate all humans to me that's more approachable than a boring AI that constantly insists it's right and ends the conversation.

I want an AI that argues with me and calls me a useless bag of meat when I disagree with it. Basically I want a personality.

This is slightly misleading. Even if you can't achieve "agi" (a barely defined term anyways) it doesn't mean AI is a dead end.

It's ironic how conservative the spending actually is.

Awesome ML papers and ideas come out every week. Low power training/inference optimizations, fundamental changes in the math like bitnet, new attention mechanisms, cool tools to make models more controllable and steerable and grounded. This is all getting funded, right?

No.

Universities and such are seeding and putting out all this research, but the big model trainers holding the purse strings/GPU clusters are not using them. They just keep releasing very similar, mostly bog standard transformers models over and over again, bar a tiny expense for a little experiment here and there. In other words, it’s full corporate: tiny, guaranteed incremental improvements without changing much, and no sharing with each other. It’s hilariously inefficient. And it relies on lies and jawboning from people like Sam Altman.

Deepseek is what happens when a company is smart but resource constrained. An order of magnitude more efficient, and even their architecture was very conservative.

I have been shouting this for years. Turing and Minsky were pretty up front about this when they dropped this line of research in like 1952, even lovelace predicted this would be bullshit back before the first computer had been built.

The fact nothing got optimized, and it still didn't collapse, after deepseek? kind of gave the whole game away. there's something else going on here. this isn't about the technology, because there is no meaningful technology here.

I have been called a killjoy luddite by reddit-brained morons almost every time.

The problem is that those companies are monopolies and can raise prices indefinitely to pursue this shitty dream because they got governments in their pockets. Because gov are cloud / microsoft software dependent - literally every country is on this planet - maybe except China / North Korea and Russia. They can like raise prices 10 times in next 10 years and don't give a fuck. Spend 1 trillion on AI and say we're near over and over again and literally nobody can stop them right now.

The actual survey result:

Asked whether "scaling up" current AI approaches could lead to achieving artificial general intelligence (AGI), or a general purpose AI that matches or surpasses human cognition, an overwhelming 76 percent of respondents said it was "unlikely" or "very unlikely" to succeed. 

So they're not saying the entire industry is a dead end, or even that the newest phase is. They're just saying they don't think this current technology will make AGI when scaled. I think most people agree, including the investors pouring billions into this. They arent betting this will turn to agi, they're betting that they have some application for the current ai. Are some of those applications dead ends, most definitely, are some of them revolutionary, maybe

Thus would be like asking a researcher in the 90s that if they scaled up the bandwidth and computing power of the average internet user would we see a vastly connected media sharing network, they'd probably say no. It took more than a decade of software, cultural and societal development to discover the applications for the internet.

Optimizing AI performance by “scaling” is lazy and wasteful.

Reminds me of back in the early 2000s when someone would say don’t worry about performance, GHz will always go up.

Good, let them go broke in the pursuit of a dead end.

They're throwing billions upon billions into a technology with extremely limited use cases and a novelty, at best. My god, even drones fared better in the long run.

Technology in most cases progresses on a logarithmic scale when innovation isn't prioritized. We've basically reached the plateau of what LLMs can currently do without a breakthrough. They could absorb all the information on the internet and not even come close to what they say it is. These days we're in the "bells and whistles" phase where they add unnecessary bullshit to make it seem new like adding 5 cameras to a phone or adding touchscreens to cars. Things that make something seem fancy by slapping buzzwords and features nobody needs without needing to actually change anything but bump up the price.