3 ms·
I think AGI is too ill-defined for there to be a simple litmus. For me to agree that a process running on a computer has general intelligence, the conclusion co
by enasterosophes 3y ago
I think AGI is too ill-defined for there to be a simple litmus. For me to agree that a process running on a computer has general intelligence, the conclusion could only come after a long and fuzzy process of playing around with it, seeing what makes it tick, observing its behavior, and testing it for motivation, imagination and the ability to understand and adapt to changing contexts.
I can guess what motivation lies behind the question, so I'll also add my opinion about where we're at now: Nothing even comes close.
Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised if we never get there at all in the next thousand years.
Why such a long period of time? Because there is more going on in the world right now than advances in machine learning. Looking at global population dynamics and climate change forecasts, we're on the road to major global infrastructure collapse in around the 22nd century. And I understand a lot of people are optimistic that (a) we will have AGI before then, and (b) climate change and population implosion won't change that much. Yet, despite the optimists, I don't think I'm on shaky ground with my current forecast.
It's not the first time in history we'll have had a major infrastructure collapse. When it's happened in the past, those periods end up being called dark ages. And I don't think there will be intensive AI R&D during a global dark age.
- ilaksh 3y agoCan you give a concrete example of imagination, and another of adaptation?
- enasterosophes 3y agoIt feels like you're trying to probe me for something that you can give a counterexample to. Like I said, it would be a fuzzy process. I explicitly rejected the idea that there could be a simple litmus. Presenting examples of imagination and adaptation so that someone can shoot them down with "oh, AI has already done that" isn't what I signed up for today.
- famouswaffles 3y agoAnyone can talk about any attribute they like but if you can't demonstrate instances of it or define it then it's just fiction.
- RetroTechie 3y agoLet's take a small creature, say a fruit fly or a jumping spider. We can probably agree that they have tiny brains (if in the shape of some centralized brain, that is). a) Would you say it shows any kind of intelligent behavior? For a flexible definition of "intelligent", along the lines of "problem-solving ability". b) Would you say such behavior is pure instinct, 'pre-programmed', incapable of learning / evolving / adjusting to a changing environment? c) Would you say that (given time) science is incapable of figuring out how such tiny brain works? Or produce a model that shows similar behavior? Now take it up a few notches. Say the brain of a mouse. Then onto brains of bigger mammals & humans. I think you can see where this is going... Granted, "global collapse" scenario does have a non-0 probability.