Eric Schmidt

There's no evidence right now of the ability to set your own objective function.

The thinking, and I'm writing a paper on this, so I've been studying it, is that the technical problem is non-stationarity of mathematical proofs.

And what you're doing is you're trying to solve against the objective function, but the objective function keeps changing, which is how humans operate.

Your goal changes every day, whereas computers have trouble with that.

As a math problem, we don't have an algorithm yet for LLMs that can do that.

People are working on it.

And the test will be, can you basically, using the information available in 1902, can you derive the same thing that Einstein did with special relativity followed by general relativity?

We cannot do that today.

And most people believe that the way this will be solved is through analogy.

So the theory of great geniuses is that they understand one area extremely well and they're so brilliant, the lady or man, can then take their ideas and apply it to a completely different domain.

If we can solve that problem, then I think it's over.

Then we get to AGI and then it's a whole different world.

What you just said is exactly what's going to happen for the next few years.

that each of us will have assistance which on our command and our prompting will be incredibly helpful to whatever problem we have you know personal you have people who are using these things for relationship advice for you know talking to their kids i mean it's all crazy stuff but the fact that matters that's it to me the real question is when does it cross over to having its own volition its own ability to seek information and solve new problems that's a different animal but have we seen any evidence of recursive self-improvement yet

Not yet.

I've funded a number of startups which claim to be close to it.

But of course these are startups and you never know.

Which tells me it's five, ten years.

Well, I'm not at Google anymore.

Every issue of Gemini is top of the leaderboard.