11–20 of 104 posts
Reading this list makes me think if an AI can just make an income without being told explicitly how to do it, is it an AGI? This metric seems reductive on the surface, but takes quite a bit of intelligence to understand how society works and how to provide value.
Interesting thought. Could we please add “within the limits of law”?
Most humans can't do it.
Is this a sign that the AI has succeeded at becoming intelligent or failed? I don’t think any of the cryptocurrency milestones are plausible signs of progress. Surely GPT could have generated some preposterous “white paper” circa 2021 and with a little help achieved that.
Hmm. Only if "discrete-time, alternating-games" is the specific-task. Everything within that can use the same algorithms, just with different training data.
I'd suggest, as near term goals:
- A robot that can pick and pack at least 90% of what Amazon sells without needing human intervention more than once a day. (Get acquired by Amazon at a 9-figure valuation.)
- A robot that can clean a store or office building's floors or carpets without needing human intervention more than once a week. (That is, a useful industrial-strength Roomba.)
- A robot that can, by feel, do single-pin lock picking. (Currently, getting a key into a lock is an advanced robotics task.)
- A robot that can restock grocery store shelves.
- Small forklift robots which can cooperate to move larger furniture. (Good way to get into multi-robot coordination in unstructured environments.)
- A small robot with the agility of a squirrel.
More advanced:
- Assemble IKEA furniture.
- Cooperating robots which can do basic house construction tasks, such as installing wallboard or running electrical cable or pipe.
The author writes:
"In the early days of artificial intelligence, the field was defined by a single goal: to build a machine that could think and behave like a human. We call that AGI, or artificial general intelligence, and it’s humanity’s final tech frontier." That's too human-limited. There are stages beyond that, such as running a large coordinated multi-robot operation, or a whole society of robots.
I would be very interested in a set of benchmarks and intermediate goals for safe AGI (i.e. AGI that is aligned with human interests) rather than just AGI itself.
I know, I know, it’s just a language model.
But I’ve been thinking. About my thinking. I think in words. I solve problems in words. I communicate results in words. If I had no body, and you could only interact with me via text, would I look that much different than GPT?
Does AGI really need anything more than words? Is it possible that simply adding more parameters to today’s transformer models will yield AGI? It seems increasingly plausible to me.