I think that if today's capabilities were explained to someone 10-20 years ago they would think this is definitely AGI, but they would also have expected much more disruptive changes to society as a result than what is happening. I figure that's because we have abstract intelligence without physical/grounded intelligence, and it turns out the former isn't general enough to implement the latter (remains to be seen if the word after that is "yet" or "ever"). So I think we do have AGI as conventionally understood, but our understanding needs recalibration.
We've underestimated how long it is going to take to validate and build into some of the most valuable areas, and probably overestimated how much new CRUD software is needed (or people are willing to pay for) I think there is still a lot of room in the tail for custom software, but the niches are tight!
> but they would also have expected much more disruptive changes to society as a result than what is happening.
> I figure that's because we have abstract intelligence without physical/grounded intelligence,
I put the cause on "not enough time". As a thought experiment, if an AI today were to (miraculously) produce a cell design template for a cell that, when injected into somebody's brains cures their Alzheimer's, how long would it take for that to reach the clinics? The actual physical tech barely exists, and let's not forget about the regulatory quagmire. So, with some optimism, I give it about four decades. In the same four decades, the same AI in the hand of unscrupulous actors could bring enough devastation so many times over that we may need to enforce a global ban on AI. In any case, I'm pretty sure we are going to get our disruptions; it's just a matter of time.
The problem with that perspective is that people thought, "Only AGI can do X, therefore, if a thing can do X, it's AGI." Because they can't imagine how X could be accomplished without it.
However, what's actually changed is how people perceived X because we don't have to imagine. We understand now that it doesn't require AGI so we no longer make that leap to assume it's AGI if it can do X.
It's really going to be a "I know it when I see it" situation.
that would be a reasonable definition of AGI if everyone agree upon the specifics of the test, but that has never happened. Turing test is very much out of style, but I think that's because no one could even agree what the test was. I personally like the Kurzweil-Kapor version of the test and that is still unsettled: https://longbets.org/1/
I think that if today's capabilities were explained to someone 10-20 years ago they would think this is definitely AGI, but they would also have expected much more disruptive changes to society as a result than what is happening. I figure that's because we have abstract intelligence without physical/grounded intelligence, and it turns out the former isn't general enough to implement the latter (remains to be seen if the word after that is "yet" or "ever"). So I think we do have AGI as conventionally understood, but our understanding needs recalibration.
We've underestimated how long it is going to take to validate and build into some of the most valuable areas, and probably overestimated how much new CRUD software is needed (or people are willing to pay for) I think there is still a lot of room in the tail for custom software, but the niches are tight!
> but they would also have expected much more disruptive changes to society as a result than what is happening. > I figure that's because we have abstract intelligence without physical/grounded intelligence,
I put the cause on "not enough time". As a thought experiment, if an AI today were to (miraculously) produce a cell design template for a cell that, when injected into somebody's brains cures their Alzheimer's, how long would it take for that to reach the clinics? The actual physical tech barely exists, and let's not forget about the regulatory quagmire. So, with some optimism, I give it about four decades. In the same four decades, the same AI in the hand of unscrupulous actors could bring enough devastation so many times over that we may need to enforce a global ban on AI. In any case, I'm pretty sure we are going to get our disruptions; it's just a matter of time.
The problem with that perspective is that people thought, "Only AGI can do X, therefore, if a thing can do X, it's AGI." Because they can't imagine how X could be accomplished without it.
However, what's actually changed is how people perceived X because we don't have to imagine. We understand now that it doesn't require AGI so we no longer make that leap to assume it's AGI if it can do X.
It's really going to be a "I know it when I see it" situation.
No, because it has never meant a specific thing that everyone agreed on.
Does it pass the Turing test?
Depending on the proctor, ELIZA passes a Turing test. The Turing test is an interesting thought experiment, but isn't really a good measure.
that would be a reasonable definition of AGI if everyone agree upon the specifics of the test, but that has never happened. Turing test is very much out of style, but I think that's because no one could even agree what the test was. I personally like the Kurzweil-Kapor version of the test and that is still unsettled: https://longbets.org/1/
4 replies →
Prime Intellect or nothing.
I think the last re-re-redefinition of what OpenAI considered AGI was "It can mostly do the job of some people"
Remember when The Verge was not a pay-walled visual headache?
Remember when “Pepperidge farm remembers” meant something?
No, I really don't