1–10 of 31 posts
We're not likely to all get on the same page exactly after one round of discussion, but I think it would help accelerate the process and help us to challenge our own assumptions and update our own mental models.
I also don't require it to do things that require embodiment, like "play a game of baseball" or whatever. Although I do see a time coming when robotics and AI will align to the extent that an AI powered robotic player will be able to "play a game of baseball" or suchlike.
To expand on this a bit: I don't over-emphasize the "general" part like some people do. That is, some people argue against AGI on the basis that "even humans aren't a general intelligence". That, to me, is mere pedantry and goal-post moving. I don't think anybody involved in AGI ever expected AGI to necessarily mean "most general possible problem solver that can exist in the state space of all possible general problem solvers" or whatever. Disclosure: I'm partially paraphrasing Ben Goertzel from a recent interview[1] I saw, in that previous sentence.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/maxirwin_as-discourse-continu...
“As discourse continues on the impact and potential of Artificial General Intelligence, I propose these 5 levels of AGI to use as a measurement of capability:
Level 1: “Write this marketing copy”, “Translate this passage” - The model handles this task alone based on the prompt
Level 2: “Research this topic and write a paper with citations” - 3rd party sources as input – reads and responds to the task
Level 3: “Order a pizza”, “Book my vacation” - 3rd party sources as input and output - generally complex with multiple variables
Level 4: “Buy this house”, “Negotiate this contract” - Specific long-term goal, multiple 3rd party interactions with abstract motivation and feedback
Level 5: “Maximize the company profit”, “Reduce global warming” - Purpose driven, unbounded 3rd party interactions, agency and complex reasoning required
I had the pleasure to present this yesterday afternoon on WXXI Connections (https://lnkd.in/gA9CugQR), and again in the evening during a panel discussion on ChatGPT hosted by TechRochester and RocDev (https://lnkd.in/gjYDEkBE).
This year, we will see products capable of levels 1, 2, and 3. Those three levels are purely digital, and aside from the operator all integration points are done through APIs and content. For some examples, level 1 is ChatGPT, level 2 is Bing, and level 3 is AutoGPT.
Levels 4 and 5 are what I call "hard AGI" - as they require working with people aside from the operator, and doing so on a longer timeline with an overall purpose. We will likely see attempts at this technology this year, but it will not be successful.
For technology to reach a given level, it must perform as well as a person who is an expert at the task. A broken buggy approach that produces a poor result does not qualify.
Thanks for reading, and if you would like to discuss these topics or work towards a solution for your business, contact me to discuss!”
In my personal lexicon, "AGI" means computer / machine based intelligence that is approximately as flexible and capable as an average adult human. So an "AGI" to me, should be able to drive a car, play chess, do math, discuss literature, etc. What is not required in my definition is for the AGI to be "human like" at all. So the Turing Test is meaningless to me, as I don't need an AGI to be able to lie effectively and…
I definitely think the line of argumentation that even humans aren't a general intelligence is an unhelpful one that's also just wrong on an intuitive level.
Though what's becoming clear to me is that the effect that being part of a multi-agent system has on a single agents ability to generalize is enormous and likely to be quite important when thinking about AGI too.
Also what's becoming clear is that the possible state space of what might constitute something that could be called AGI is likely enormous.
I'm mostly interested in it from X-risk perspective of what properties of an AGI system are necessary and sufficient to pose existential risk and what are the visible thresholds you would need to cross on the path to such a system coming into existence?
Something that can escape it's programming, not just master what it's been given. I expect there are mental gymnastics to explain why chatgpt already fits this in some technical sense, hopefully people see what I'm getting at.
I suspect it at least involves the combination of being able to continuously learn in response to novel stimuli and developing the goal of self-preservation.