Will we think robots by 2030? Or is it just promotion from Big Tech?

These days, many people use Artificial Intelligence (AI) chatbot for everything from dinner suggestions to loneliness, but can humanity be to make such machines that can think for themselves – and potentially can exclude their creators?

Some big tech companies say that such success, called General Artificial Intelligence (AGI), is only a few years away. But suspicion says that you should not believe in publicity.

“Whenever you see someone talking about AGI, just (picture) tooth fairy, or Father like Christmas,” said Ed Zitron, the host of The Tech Podcast. Better offline And the manufacturer of Where is your ed? Newspaper.

He said, “These are all imaginary concepts, AGIs. The difference is the current,

Experts disagree on what matters as AGI, but it is generally considered an artificial intelligence that is smart or smart than humans with autonomously learning and working ability. That intelligence can then be installed in a robot body that can complete a crowd of tasks.

Look Google’s humanoid robot can pack your lunch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikzeu3wkvjm

Damis Hasabis, CEO of Google’s AI Lab Deepmind, recently said that his company will achieve AGI by 2030.

“My timeline has been very consistent since the start of Deepmind in 2010, so we thought it is a mission of about 20 years and surprisingly we are on track,” he Told New York Times in May,

Zitron is not confident. He said that Hasbis is “direct encouragement” to talk about his company’s progress, and pointed out Uncertainty about the profitability of AI chatbots Like Google’s Gemini or Openai chat.

He said, “None of these companies are really earning any money with generic AI … so they need a new magic trick to remove people from their back.”

Agi ‘always 10 years away’

AI expert Melani Mitchell says that people have been predicting such intelligent AIs since the 1960s – and those predictions have always been wrong.

“The AGI or equivalent is always 10 years away, but it has always been there and perhaps it will always be.”

He said that there is not a universal agreement what a working AGI should be able to do, but it should not be confused with a large language model such as chat or cloud, which is a type of genetic AI.

Large-language models (LLMS) that power generative AI programs have been trained on “a large amount of human-generated language, either from websites or from books or other media”, and resulted in “very managed to generate a very human language language,” he said. the current,

Zitron said the distinction is important, as it reveals that “generic AI is not intelligence, it is calling a fund of information” which it has been fed by humans.

He defines the AGI to “a conscious computer … something that can think and fully act for himself, as he defines and has the ability to learn.

“We don’t know how human consciousness works,” he said. “How we are with computers to do so? And the answer is, we don’t know.”

Michelle is worried that without a widely agreed definition, there is a risk that large tech companies “will turn AGI into existence.”

“They will say,” Oh, ok, we have what we have here, he is AGI. And therefore, we have achieved AGI, “without it really has a deep meaning,” he said.

AGI can be ‘a suicidal race’

There are people outside the tech industry who believe that AGI may be within access.

“If our brain is an organic computer, it is fine, it means it is possible to make things that can think at the human level,” Max Tegmark, a professor of MIT and president of the Future of Life Institute, is a non-profit that aims to reduce the risks of new technologies.

“And there is no law of physics that you cannot do it better,” he said.

Tagmark feels that blessings or excessive pride that AGI cannot be achieved, just as many people once thought that human flight was impossible.

Some early inventors had tried to make vain to make machines that mimic the rapid wingbets of small birds. But came with success More understanding of bird wingsAnd the idea of a machine that glides instead.

“It turns out that it was a very easy way to manufacture flying machines,” Tagmark said.

“We have seen that now the same thing is happening here, that today’s state -of -the -art AI systems are very simple than the brain. We found a different way to make a machine that can think.”

Tagmark says he would not be very surprised if “this happened in two to five years,” but does not mean that we should make the necessary robots that can exclude humans.

He described these intelligent machines as a new species, a one that could easily endanger the location of humanity in the food chain “because it is natural that the clever species take control.”

He said, “The race to make the supervision is a suicide race, but we do not need to run that race,” he said.

“We can still build amazing AI that cures cancer and gives us all kinds of amazing equipment – without building a supervision.”