4 ms·
> Nowhere do they define "AGI" Ummm, maybe you should have looked? At the top of the very first prediction, here: https://www.metaculus.com/questions/5121/date
by davidmanheim 3y ago
> Nowhere do they define "AGI"
Ummm, maybe you should have looked? At the top of the very first prediction, here: https://www.metaculus.com/questions/5121/date-of-artificial-general-intelligence/ https://www.metaculus.com/questions/5121/date-of-artificial-...
We will thus define "an AI system" as a single unified software system that can satisfy the following criteria, all completable by at least some humans.
Able to reliably pass a 2-hour, adversarial Turing test during which the participants can send text, images, and audio files (as is done in ordinary text messaging applications) during the course of their conversation. An 'adversarial' Turing test is one in which the human judges are instructed to ask interesting and difficult questions, designed to advantage human participants, and to successfully unmask the computer as an impostor. A single demonstration of an AI passing such a Turing test, or one that is sufficiently similar, will be sufficient for this condition, so long as the test is well-designed to the estimation of Metaculus Admins.
Has general robotic capabilities, of the type able to autonomously, when equipped with appropriate actuators and when given human-readable instructions, satisfactorily assemble a (or the equivalent of a) circa-2021 Ferrari 312 T4 1:8 scale automobile model. A single demonstration of this ability, or a sufficiently similar demonstration, will be considered sufficient.
High competency at a diverse fields of expertise, as measured by achieving at least 75% accuracy in every task and 90% mean accuracy across all tasks in the Q&A dataset developed by Dan Hendrycks et al..
Able to get top-1 strict accuracy of at least 90.0% on interview-level problems found in the APPS benchmark introduced by Dan Hendrycks, Steven Basart et al. Top-1 accuracy is distinguished, as in the paper, from top-k accuracy in which k outputs from the model are generated, and the best output is selected.
By "unified" we mean that the system is integrated enough that it can, for example, explain its reasoning on a Q&A task, or verbally report its progress and identify objects during model assembly. (This is not really meant to be an additional capability of "introspection" so much as a provision that the system not simply be cobbled together as a set of sub-systems specialized to tasks like the above, but rather a single system applicable to many problems.)
Resolution will come from any of three forms, whichever comes first: (1) direct demonstration of such a system achieving ALL of the above criteria, (2) confident credible statement by its developers that an existing system is able to satisfy these criteria, or (3) judgement by a majority vote in a special committee composed of the question author and two AI experts chosen in good faith by him, for the sole purpose of resolving this question. Resolution date will be the first date at which the system (subsequently judged to satisfy the criteria) and its capabilities are publicly described in a talk, press release, paper, or other report available to the general public.
- gpderetta 3y agoYou do realize that many, if not most, humans would fail this test, right?
- TheOtherHobbes 3y agoAGI is competing with human culture as a whole. Individual humans are not exactly the best of all possible tests for AGI.
- kayodelycaon 3y agoYes, but humans as a group can do it. An AGI needs to show a similar number of AGIs can do the same given the same starting template. The AGI will need to look at all of the tasks written, determine what the success criteria is, and then combine that that into a single set of answers. With the instructions in human-readable form, not machine readable. It can use as many or as few AGIs as it needs to accomplish this. It's the same as if we gave these instructions to a human with sufficient skill and resources to delegate.
- famouswaffles 3y agoYes you'll find that any testable definition of AGI that has not been passed yet would be unpassable for a big chunk of the human population. In other words, General, Artificial and Intelligent have been passed. That's why a few papers/researchers opt to call these models "General Artificial Intelligence" instead https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2806457 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/28064... https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12003 https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12003 Or some such variant like "General Purpose Technologies" as Open AI did. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.10130 https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.10130 since "AGI" has so much baggage with posts shifting at the speed of light.
- sdwr 3y agoI think we're reaching a point where the Turing test is no longer useful. If you get into the nitty-gritty of it (instead of just handwaving "computer should act like person"), it's about roleplaying a fake identity. Which is a specific skill, not a general test of competence.