社交媒体往往把 AI 讨论框定成两个“漫画式”极端角色： (A) 怀疑者：认为大模型迟早失败，AI 都是炒作。 (B) 狂热者：认为所有要素都已具备，超级智能（ASI）即将来临。 但如果你真正去读一线顶尖研究者的观点（而不是标题党内容），你会发现一个令人惊讶的事实：他们的观点高度趋同。 1）现有 AI 范式（大模型）即便没有进一步重大突破，也足以带来巨大的经济与社会影响。 2）要实现 AGI/ASI，很可能仍需要新的研究突破。 （研究者最常提到的例子包括：持续学习（continual learning）、样本效率（sample efficiency）等。） 3）我们大概率能在 20 年内解决这些问题并实现 AGI/ASI。 * Demis Hassabis（DeepMind）说：可能 5–10 年。 * François Chollet（Keras 创始人）最近说：大约 5 年。 * Sam Altman 说：ASI 可能在几千天内出现。 * Yann LeCun 说：大约 10 年。 * Ilya Sutskever 说：5–20 年。 * Dario Amodei（Anthropic）最乐观，说可能在 2 年，但也承认可能会更久。 这些人当中 没有一个 认为 ASI 是幻想，也没有人认为它可能需要 100+ 年。 许多分歧只是： — “突破会是什么？” — “什么时候来？” 但总体而言，业内专家在共识点上远多于分歧点。 Social media tends to frame AI debate into two caricatures: (A) Skeptics who think LLMs are doomed and AI is a bunch of hype. (B) Fanatics who think we have all the ingredients and superintelligence is imminent. But if you read what leading researchers actually say (beyond the headlines), there’s a surprising amount of convergence: 1) The current paradigm is likely sufficient for massive economic and societal impact, even without further research breakthroughs. 2) More research breakthroughs are probably needed to achieve AGI/ASI. (Continual learning and sample efficiency are two examples that researchers commonly point to.) 3) We probably figure them out and get there within 20 years. @demishassabis said maybe in 5-10 years. @fchollet recently said about 5 years. @sama said ASI is possible in a few thousand days. @ylecun said about 10 years. @ilyasut said 5-20 years. @DarioAmodei is the most bullish, saying it's possible in 2 years though he also said it might take longer. None of them are saying ASI is a fantasy, or that it's probably 100+ years away. A lot of the disagreement is in what those breakthroughs will be and how quickly they will come. But all things considered, people in the field agree on a lot more than they disagree on.
观点原文
社交媒体往往把 AI 讨论框定成两个“漫画式”极端角色：
(A) 怀疑者：认为大模型迟早失败，AI 都是炒作。
(B) 狂热者：认为所有要素都已具备，超级智能（ASI）即将来临。
但如果你真正去读一线顶尖研究者的观点（而不是标题党内容），你会发现一个令人惊讶的事实：他们的观点高度趋同。
1）现有 AI 范式（大模型）即便没有进一步重大突破，也足以带来巨大的经济与社会影响。
2）要实现 AGI/ASI，很可能仍需要新的研究突破。
（研究者最常提到的例子包括：持续学习（continual learning）、样本效率（sample efficiency）等。）
3）我们大概率能在 20 年内解决这些问题并实现 AGI/ASI。
- Demis Hassabis（DeepMind）说：可能 5–10 年。
- François Chollet（Keras 创始人）最近说：大约 5 年。
- Sam Altman 说：ASI 可能在几千天内出现。
- Yann LeCun 说：大约 10 年。
- Ilya Sutskever 说：5–20 年。
- Dario Amodei（Anthropic）最乐观，说可能在 2 年，但也承认可能会更久。
这些人当中 没有一个 认为 ASI 是幻想，也没有人认为它可能需要 100+ 年。
许多分歧只是：
— “突破会是什么？”
— “什么时候来？”
但总体而言，业内专家在共识点上远多于分歧点。
Social media tends to frame AI debate into two caricatures:
(A) Skeptics who think LLMs are doomed and AI is a bunch of hype.
(B) Fanatics who think we have all the ingredients and superintelligence is imminent.
But if you read what leading researchers actually say (beyond the headlines), there’s a surprising amount of convergence:
- The current paradigm is likely sufficient for massive economic and societal impact, even without further research breakthroughs.
- More research breakthroughs are probably needed to achieve AGI/ASI. (Continual learning and sample efficiency are two examples that researchers commonly point to.)
- We probably figure them out and get there within 20 years.
@demishassabis said maybe in 5-10 years.
@fchollet recently said about 5 years.
@sama said ASI is possible in a few thousand days.
@ylecun said about 10 years.
@ilyasut said 5-20 years.
@DarioAmodei is the most bullish, saying it's possible in 2 years though he also said it might take longer.
None of them are saying ASI is a fantasy, or that it's probably 100+ years away.
A lot of the disagreement is in what those breakthroughs will be and how quickly they will come. But all things considered, people in the field agree on a lot more than they disagree on.
相关观点
- 告别单纯写代码的时代：YC 合伙人谈资深创业者与独立创始人如何用 AI 破局Garry Tan · 2026/09/26
- 世界上最好的产品，将由那些把 Claude Code、Codex 这类工具用到极致的人打造出来。只要提示词设计得当，你今天就可以交付 10 万行具备生产级质量的代码，并且一夜之间扩展到完整的 Web 级规模（webscale）。 The best products in the world will be built by those who fully use the tools like Claude Code and Codex to their absolute max. You can ship 100k LOC production quality code today with the right prompting that can scale up to full webscale overnight.Garry Tan · 2026/02/06
- 不要建立两套绩效标准。 随着公司规模扩大，很容易产生一种诱惑：对创始团队使用一套标准，而对其他员工使用更低的一套标准。创始人按“创始人级别”要求，其他人按“员工级别”要求。这是一个错误。它会滋生怨恨，也会让绩效标准变得模糊不清、难以理解。 相反，我会尝试识别那些——不论他们何时加入公司——真正达到“创始人级别表现”的员工，然后给予相应的对待：公开认可、更快的晋升、更多的股权。 这样做能让所有人都清楚，真正的标准到底是什么。有些人会因此成长起来，有些人会选择离开。两种结果都没问题。 Don't create two tiers of performance expectations. As companies scale, there's a temptation to hold the founding team to one standard and everyone else to a lower one. Founder-level performance for the originals, employee-level for the rest. This is a mistake. It breeds resentment and makes the bar impossible to understand. Instead, I try to identify which employees — regardless of when they joined — are performing at founder-level, and then treat them accordingly. Public recognition, faster promotion, more equity. This clarifies for everyone what the actual bar is. Some people rise. Some people leave. Both are okay.Garry Tan · 2026/01/18
- 在痛点出现时再招聘。不要因为你觉得“很快可能会需要人”，或者“也许以后某个时候会用得上”就去招人。要等到你或你的团队真的开始吃不消了： 周末还在加班 错过家庭晚餐 工作开始掉链子 这种痛感，才是这个岗位真实存在的信号。我是在吃了亏之后才明白这一点的——我看到很多创始人（包括我自己）提前招聘，结果招来的人进入的岗位还没真正成型。 当你是在痛点中招聘时：你非常清楚这份工作到底是什么，因为你刚刚一直在亲自做；你能判断绩效好坏，因为你知道“好”长什么样；新员工也明白：如果他们失败了，你会随时顶上，因为你上周还在做这件事。 Hire out of pain. Don't hire because you think you'll need someone soon or maybe sometime later. Wait until you or your team are actually hurting: working weekends, missing family dinners, dropping balls. That pain is the signal that the role is real. I learned this the hard way after watching founders (including myself) hire ahead of need and end up with people in roles that weren't fully formed yet. When you hire out of pain, you know exactly what the job is because you've been doing it yourself. You can evaluate performance because you know what good looks like. And the new hire knows you'll step back in if they fail, because you were just doing it last week.Garry Tan · 2026/01/16