3 ms·

Do you mean that an AGI is an AI that can do everything any human can do? That's a reasonable goal, but it's also not what people were aiming for historically.

Do you mean that an AGI is an AI that can do everything any human can do? That's a reasonable goal, but it's also not what people were aiming for historically. It's also very expansive: if human level intelligence means outperforming in every field every human that ever lived, that's a high bar to meet. Indeed, it means that no humans have ever achieved human-level intelligence.

erichocean 4y ago
GP didn't say anything about "outperforming" all humans everywhere all the time. Just that AGI must be a replacement for a human for a particular job, for all jobs that are typically performed by humans (such as the humans you would hire to build a tech startup). It's fine to have "speciality" AGIs that are tuned for job X or job Y--just like some people are more suited to job X or job Y. Which is pretty fair.
- scarmig 4y ago
  They did say "An AGI is an AI that can do everything a human can do, period." And what you're arguing for is effectively the same: an AI (maybe with some distilled specialty models) that can perform roles of everything from customer service rep to analysts to researchers to the entire C-suite to high skilled professionals like CPAs and lawyers. There are zero humans alive who can do all of those things simultaneously. Most humans would struggle with a single one. It's perfectly fine for you to hold that as the standard of when something will impress you as an AGI, but it's absolutely a moved goalpost. It also doesn't matter much now anyway: we've gotten to the point where the proof is in the pudding. The stage is now AI-skeptics saying "AI will never be able to do X," followed by some model or another being released that can do X six months later and the AI-skeptic saying "well what about Y?"
  - FooBarWidget 4y ago
    The AI skeptics should then say "AIs can never do the plumbing for my toilet". There is a huge shortage of plumbers in this country.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

erichocean 4y ago

GP didn't say anything about "outperforming" all humans everywhere all the time. Just that AGI must be a replacement for a human for a particular job, for all jobs that are typically performed by humans (such as the humans you would hire to build a tech startup). It's fine to have "speciality" AGIs that are tuned for job X or job Y--just like some people are more suited to job X or job Y. Which is pretty fair.

scarmig 4y ago
They did say "An AGI is an AI that can do everything a human can do, period." And what you're arguing for is effectively the same: an AI (maybe with some distilled specialty models) that can perform roles of everything from customer service rep to analysts to researchers to the entire C-suite to high skilled professionals like CPAs and lawyers. There are zero humans alive who can do all of those things simultaneously. Most humans would struggle with a single one. It's perfectly fine for you to hold that as the standard of when something will impress you as an AGI, but it's absolutely a moved goalpost. It also doesn't matter much now anyway: we've gotten to the point where the proof is in the pudding. The stage is now AI-skeptics saying "AI will never be able to do X," followed by some model or another being released that can do X six months later and the AI-skeptic saying "well what about Y?"
- FooBarWidget 4y ago
  The AI skeptics should then say "AIs can never do the plumbing for my toilet". There is a huge shortage of plumbers in this country.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]