Comment by EagnaIonat

Comment by EagnaIonat 4 hours ago

I read the actual article.

He is pointing out that the current costs to create the data centres means you will never be able to make a profit to cover those costs. $800 Billion just to cover the interest.

OpenAI is already haemorrhaging money and the space data centres has already been debunked. There is even a recent paper that points out that LLMs will never become AGI.

The article also finishes out with some other experts giving the same results.

[edit] Fixed $80 to $800

noobermin 3 hours ago

$800B, to be clear is the claim, not $80B.

Reply View 1 reply

EagnaIonat 2 hours ago

Clearly I need to read slower. Thanks. :)

Reply View | 0 replies

ta12653421 4 hours ago

>> There is even a recent paper that points out that LLMs will never become AGI.

can you share a link?

Reply View 13 replies

EagnaIonat 3 hours ago

Took me a while to find again, as there are a lot of such papers in this area.
https://www.arxiv.org/pdf/2511.18517

Reply View | 11 replies
- will4274 3 hours ago
  
  Is this AI paper written by a reputable subject matter expert? It seems to be written by a physicist and also be the only academic work by this author in English
  
  Reply View | 6 replies
  
  EagnaIonat 3 hours ago
  
  So you are dismissing it because of that? Certainly read the paper first and attack the arguments, not the author. It even has 10 pages of citations.
  I have read it. It is nothing new on the subject, but it was just the recent paper I saw on HN and the person was asking for the link.
  The crux is an LLM is and can never be intelligent in the sense of an AGI. It is easier to think of it as a way to store and retrieve knowledge.
  
  Reply View | 2 replies
  
  rvnx 3 hours ago
  
  Absolutely. If it is not written by someone who has real world experience and deep knowledge it has no more value than a HN comment.
  
  Reply View | 2 replies
- mkl 3 hours ago
  
  A single author, in a physics department. Seems unlikely to be groundbreaking or authoritative.
  
  Reply View | 3 replies
  
  EagnaIonat 3 hours ago
  
  Welcome to the world of papers. Have a read and get back to us. Dismissing out of hand is rarely constructive.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  trueno 2 hours ago
  
  took me a while but i read it. thought it was actually a pretty good and well researched paper that does a good job rationalizing its thesis. thanks for sharing
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
  
  rf15 an hour ago
  
  Ad hominem right out of the gate? Really?
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
[removed] 3 hours ago

[deleted]

Reply View | 0 replies

Glemkloksdjf an hour ago

Sry to say but the fact that you argue with LLMs never become AGI, you are not up-to-date.

People don't assume LLM will be AGI, people assume that World Models will lead us to AGI.

I personally never asumed LLM will become AGI, i always assumed that LLM broke the dam for investment and research into massivce scale compute ML learning and LLMs are very very good in showing were the future goes because they are already so crazy good that people can now imagine a future were AGI exists.

And that was very clear already when / as soon as GPT-3 came out.

The next big thing will probably be either a LOT more RL or self propelling ai architecture discovery. Both need massive compute to work well but then will potentially provide even faster progress as soon as humans are out of the loop.

Reply View 1 reply

EagnaIonat 28 minutes ago

> People don't assume LLM will be AGI,
I wish that was true.
> people assume that World Models will lead us to AGI.
Who are these people? There is no consensus around this that I have seen. You have anything to review regarding this?
> as soon as GPT-3 came out.
I don't think that was true at all. It was impressive when it came out, but people in the field clearly saw the limitations and what it is.
RL isn't magical either. Google AlphaGo as an example often required human intervention to get the RL to work correctly.

Reply View | 0 replies