5 ms·

There are so many things wrong in this statement (starting with "immediately"). Let's assume they built a system they claim is AGI. Let's assume its energy con

There are so many things wrong in this statement (starting with "immediately"). Let's assume they built a system they claim is AGI. Let's assume its energy consumption is smaller than that of a small country. Let's assume that we can verify it's AGI. Let's assume its intelligence is higher than average human. That's many "ifs" and I omitted quite a few. Now, the question is: would you trust it? As a human, a manager, a president? With the current generation, I treat is as a dumb but quick typist, it can create code much faster than I can, but the responsibility to verify it all is entirely on me. We would need decades of proof such an AGI is reliable in order to actually start trusting it - and even then, I'm not sure how safe it would be.

xvector 2y ago
If anyone in the thread has used o1 or the real-time voice tools, it's pretty clear AGI is here already, so we are really talking about ASI. You have no option but to trust an ASI as it is all-powerful by definition. If you don't trust ASI, your only option is to prevent it from existing to begin with. Edit: please note that AGI ≠ "human intelligence," just a general intelligence (that may exceed humans in some areas and fall behind in others.)
- flunhat 2y ago
  > please note that AGI ≠ "human intelligence," just a general intelligence (that may exceed humans in some areas and fall behind in others.) By this definition a calculator would be an AGI. (Behold -- a man!)
  - xvector 2y ago
    Meh, what I've seen is that we continually move the goalposts for AGI, and even GTP-3.5 would have been considered AGI by our standards from just 5 years ago. But if I can't convince you, maybe Norvig can: https://www.noemamag.com/artificial-general-intelligence-is-already-here/ https://www.noemamag.com/artificial-general-intelligence-is-...
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- yunwal 2y ago
  Let’s say you gave o1 an API to control a good robot. Could it throw a football? Could it accomplish even the most basic tasks? If not, it’s not generally intelligent.
  - xvector 2y ago
    > Let’s say you gave o1 an API to control a good robot. Could it throw a football? Maybe. > Could it accomplish even the most basic tasks? Definitely: https://youtu.be/Sq1QZB5baNw https://youtu.be/Sq1QZB5baNw
    - yunwal 2y ago
      I stand corrected
- benterix 2y ago
  > If you don't trust ASI, your only option is to prevent it from existing to begin with. I don't understand this sentence. I don't trust Generative AI because it often spits out false, inaccurate or made up answers, but I don't believe my "only option is to prevent it from existing".
  - xvector 2y ago
    ASI by definition will be all-powerful or close to it. What are you gonna do if it comes into existence? Because if you don't trust it, you're fucked: - Your attempts to limit its influence on your life will be effective only if the ASI decides to willfully ignore or not notice you. - If it lies or not, there's nothing you can really do. The outcome it wants is practically guaranteed regardless. It will be running circles around your mental capacity like a human drawing circles around an ant on a piece of paper. So what option do you really have but to trust it? I mean, sure, you can not trust the all-powerful god, but your lack of trust will never really have any effect on the real world, or even your life, as the ASI will always get what it wants. Really, your only option is to prevent it from happening to begin with. All that said - I think ASI will be great and people's concerns are overblown.
    - benterix 2y ago
      > ASI by definition will be all-powerful or close to it. That's a huge assumption. AI in SF: all-powerful all-controlling abstract entity. AI in reality: LLMs on thousands of servers with GPUs, operated and controlled by engineers, gated by a startup masquerading as a non-profit and operating for years at a loss, with a web interface and an API, fragile enough that it becomes unavailable at times.
      - xvector 2y ago
        You are conflating AGI (what we have today) with ASI (what you are referring to in science-fiction.) These are completely different things and my comment refers to ASI, not AGI.
BarryMilo 2y ago
Would you settle for a few days of testing in perfect conditions? Just kidding, companies don't care!
beAbU 2y ago
/All Gifts, Bestowed/ by Gayou is a great read that explores this topic.

xvector 2y ago

If anyone in the thread has used o1 or the real-time voice tools, it's pretty clear AGI is here already, so we are really talking about ASI. You have no option but to trust an ASI as it is all-powerful by definition. If you don't trust ASI, your only option is to prevent it from existing to begin with. Edit: please note that AGI ≠ "human intelligence," just a general intelligence (that may exceed humans in some areas and fall behind in others.)

flunhat 2y ago
> please note that AGI ≠ "human intelligence," just a general intelligence (that may exceed humans in some areas and fall behind in others.) By this definition a calculator would be an AGI. (Behold -- a man!)
- xvector 2y ago
  Meh, what I've seen is that we continually move the goalposts for AGI, and even GTP-3.5 would have been considered AGI by our standards from just 5 years ago. But if I can't convince you, maybe Norvig can: https://www.noemamag.com/artificial-general-intelligence-is-already-here/ https://www.noemamag.com/artificial-general-intelligence-is-...
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
yunwal 2y ago
Let’s say you gave o1 an API to control a good robot. Could it throw a football? Could it accomplish even the most basic tasks? If not, it’s not generally intelligent.
- xvector 2y ago
  > Let’s say you gave o1 an API to control a good robot. Could it throw a football? Maybe. > Could it accomplish even the most basic tasks? Definitely: https://youtu.be/Sq1QZB5baNw https://youtu.be/Sq1QZB5baNw
  - yunwal 2y ago
    I stand corrected
benterix 2y ago
> If you don't trust ASI, your only option is to prevent it from existing to begin with. I don't understand this sentence. I don't trust Generative AI because it often spits out false, inaccurate or made up answers, but I don't believe my "only option is to prevent it from existing".
- xvector 2y ago
  ASI by definition will be all-powerful or close to it. What are you gonna do if it comes into existence? Because if you don't trust it, you're fucked: - Your attempts to limit its influence on your life will be effective only if the ASI decides to willfully ignore or not notice you. - If it lies or not, there's nothing you can really do. The outcome it wants is practically guaranteed regardless. It will be running circles around your mental capacity like a human drawing circles around an ant on a piece of paper. So what option do you really have but to trust it? I mean, sure, you can not trust the all-powerful god, but your lack of trust will never really have any effect on the real world, or even your life, as the ASI will always get what it wants. Really, your only option is to prevent it from happening to begin with. All that said - I think ASI will be great and people's concerns are overblown.
  - benterix 2y ago
    > ASI by definition will be all-powerful or close to it. That's a huge assumption. AI in SF: all-powerful all-controlling abstract entity. AI in reality: LLMs on thousands of servers with GPUs, operated and controlled by engineers, gated by a startup masquerading as a non-profit and operating for years at a loss, with a web interface and an API, fragile enough that it becomes unavailable at times.
    - xvector 2y ago
      You are conflating AGI (what we have today) with ASI (what you are referring to in science-fiction.) These are completely different things and my comment refers to ASI, not AGI.

BarryMilo 2y ago

Would you settle for a few days of testing in perfect conditions? Just kidding, companies don't care!

beAbU 2y ago

/All Gifts, Bestowed/ by Gayou is a great read that explores this topic.