11–20 of 132 posts
99.9% with the right harness? Ok, we're at AGI then. Prediction: We will now see the goalposts moved towards "well, a human costs less / is more efficient" - that will prevail for a few months until they come up with some other test that humans can do easily but is hard for the bots. This cycle will continue for ever and in 25 years, despite having hyper intelligent embodied robots or whatever, we'll still be arguing…
That’s because AGI, like a lot of terms, has no meaning besides what each individual subjectively projects onto it.
IMO, AGI is literally no different from ASI, though people think it is. Like, Imagine you have 1,000 generally intelligent humans working for you (which nobody is really) and you were to point them at your pet project. That would be amazing!
99.9% with the right harness? Ok, we're at AGI then. Prediction: We will now see the goalposts moved towards "well, a human costs less / is more efficient" - that will prevail for a few months until they come up with some other test that humans can do easily but is hard for the bots. This cycle will continue for ever and in 25 years, despite having hyper intelligent embodied robots or whatever, we'll still be arguing…
> We will now see the goalposts moved It's already happening :)
99.9% with the right harness? Ok, we're at AGI then. Prediction: We will now see the goalposts moved towards "well, a human costs less / is more efficient" - that will prevail for a few months until they come up with some other test that humans can do easily but is hard for the bots. This cycle will continue for ever and in 25 years, despite having hyper intelligent embodied robots or whatever, we'll still be arguing…
"For a cost comparison, during our controlled testing, human participants were paid $115 per 90-minute session, plus $5 per game completed. Participants attempted approximately nine games per session, roughly $12.78 per attempted game before bonuses. Most of this fee pays for the participant’s time and willingness to take the test, rather than the energy their brain uses (a closer proxy to compare with AI). If we loo…
Okay. But I don't think this entire article at all explained which AI capabilities remain out of reach. Did I miss something? Other than "oh I guess it could still get even more superhuman on ARC-AGI-3 than it is?"
Is solving a snake like puzzle game in the least number of moves really what defines intelligence?