3 ms·

Several comments have touched on this, but wouldn't you define an AGI as something that could learn to drive a car? I think every (reasonable ( person understan

Several comments have touched on this, but wouldn't you define an AGI as something that could learn to drive a car? I think every (reasonable ( person understands self driving is >10 years away. So shouldn't AGI be?

qeternity 3y ago
Even if you believe AGI is imminent, I'm not sure this test holds. Driving requires much more than intelligence: blind people cannot drive. It's possible that we're limited on the hardware / modality front.
jy1 3y ago
What makes you say self driving is 10 years away?
- nsxwolf 3y ago
  5 years ago L5 autonomy was being released any day now, but now nobody talks about it anymore. It seems like a handful of self driving cars have been driving around in circles in a couple cities forever now and everyone just keeps giving the same demo.
paxys 3y ago
Not necessarily. It could be that AGI exists and can learn how to drive a car, but we don't have good enough cameras/LIDARs/other sensors to make it work. Or the computation/battery power needed to do so isn't possible to fit in a car. AGI is about inventing the brain, while the car is an entire body.
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  In the General case* there is no functional brain without a functional body *One can nitpick yourself into creating a series of examples of fictional disabled people but let’s not bikeshed please
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    Disabled people who have functional brains still have substantial body function (otherwise, their brain – which is part of the body and dependent on a number of other parts – would stop functioning.)
  - paxys 3y ago
    Can a blind person drive a car? Is a blind person not intelligent?
    - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
      A blind person is less able to prove they are intelligent in a multi-context, multi-challenge intelligence test than someone who is not blind
sowbug 3y ago
Self-driving cars are colloquially held to a much higher standard than human drivers are. Nothing currently exists that meets that standard. But humans meet the GI standard of AGI. And strong evidence shows that humans exist. Thus, the standard for AGI is lower than the standard for self-driving cars. Existence of an AGI does not imply existence of self-driving cars. To put it another way: take the worst human driver who still qualifies as "could learn to drive a car." (It's assumed the person is intelligent.) Construct a Turing-like test where we observe a car possibly being driven by that person, but we don't know who or what is actually driving the car. The car drives over a curb, kills a cat crossing the street, narrowly misses a dozen pedestrians in crosswalks, and finally parks poorly in a mall parking lot -- just like we would expect from the world's worst human driver. After observing that car trip, would we celebrate the long-awaited arrival of self-driving cars?
- grumple 3y ago
  Aren't the best self driving cars causing traffic jams in SF because they can't handle everyday tasks? And can any self driving car handle suboptimal environments like snow? Or just unmarked roads? Or... left turns in traffic?
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    Just because you can't handle every situation that could occur when driving it doesn't mean you don't have the ability to drive. I can't parallel park, but I would still consider myself able to drive. I make mistakes driving where I'm not supposed to yet I'm still a driver.
    - grumple 3y ago
      But you're not stopping in the middle of the street for long periods in confusion because of a common situation. There's levels to this and the self driving cars are not yet at an acceptable level.
staticman2 3y ago
If the AGI needs to live in a giant data center it probably can't reliably drive a car due to latency issues.
wrs 3y ago
“G” means general. If it can learn to drive a car, build a car, sell cars, write poetry about cars, and teach a class about the history of cars, then it’s scratching the surface of AGI, because there’s more to life than cars.

qeternity 3y ago

Even if you believe AGI is imminent, I'm not sure this test holds. Driving requires much more than intelligence: blind people cannot drive. It's possible that we're limited on the hardware / modality front.

jy1 3y ago

What makes you say self driving is 10 years away?

nsxwolf 3y ago
5 years ago L5 autonomy was being released any day now, but now nobody talks about it anymore. It seems like a handful of self driving cars have been driving around in circles in a couple cities forever now and everyone just keeps giving the same demo.

paxys 3y ago

Not necessarily. It could be that AGI exists and can learn how to drive a car, but we don't have good enough cameras/LIDARs/other sensors to make it work. Or the computation/battery power needed to do so isn't possible to fit in a car. AGI is about inventing the brain, while the car is an entire body.

AndrewKemendo 3y ago
In the General case* there is no functional brain without a functional body *One can nitpick yourself into creating a series of examples of fictional disabled people but let’s not bikeshed please
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  Disabled people who have functional brains still have substantial body function (otherwise, their brain – which is part of the body and dependent on a number of other parts – would stop functioning.)
- paxys 3y ago
  Can a blind person drive a car? Is a blind person not intelligent?
  - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
    A blind person is less able to prove they are intelligent in a multi-context, multi-challenge intelligence test than someone who is not blind

sowbug 3y ago

Self-driving cars are colloquially held to a much higher standard than human drivers are. Nothing currently exists that meets that standard. But humans meet the GI standard of AGI. And strong evidence shows that humans exist. Thus, the standard for AGI is lower than the standard for self-driving cars. Existence of an AGI does not imply existence of self-driving cars. To put it another way: take the worst human driver who still qualifies as "could learn to drive a car." (It's assumed the person is intelligent.) Construct a Turing-like test where we observe a car possibly being driven by that person, but we don't know who or what is actually driving the car. The car drives over a curb, kills a cat crossing the street, narrowly misses a dozen pedestrians in crosswalks, and finally parks poorly in a mall parking lot -- just like we would expect from the world's worst human driver. After observing that car trip, would we celebrate the long-awaited arrival of self-driving cars?

grumple 3y ago
Aren't the best self driving cars causing traffic jams in SF because they can't handle everyday tasks? And can any self driving car handle suboptimal environments like snow? Or just unmarked roads? Or... left turns in traffic?
- charcircuit 3y ago
  Just because you can't handle every situation that could occur when driving it doesn't mean you don't have the ability to drive. I can't parallel park, but I would still consider myself able to drive. I make mistakes driving where I'm not supposed to yet I'm still a driver.
  - grumple 3y ago
    But you're not stopping in the middle of the street for long periods in confusion because of a common situation. There's levels to this and the self driving cars are not yet at an acceptable level.

staticman2 3y ago

If the AGI needs to live in a giant data center it probably can't reliably drive a car due to latency issues.

wrs 3y ago

“G” means general. If it can learn to drive a car, build a car, sell cars, write poetry about cars, and teach a class about the history of cars, then it’s scratching the surface of AGI, because there’s more to life than cars.