4 ms·

OpenAI has clear and strange definition of AGI in contract with MSFT: it should produce 100B economic impact.

bmau5 1y ago
Thanks for pointing that out, I missed that. Very curious how they'll measure that. Given they're in the double-digit billions of revenue I'd assume they can reason they'll be there very soon.
throwanem 1y ago
Who knew we've had AGI for something like three hundred years? (Or, only had NGI for so long?)
wavemode 1y ago
Does it count if the impact is negative?
famouswaffles 1y ago
That not their definition of AGI. It's "a highly autonomous system that can outperform humans at most economically valuable work."
- 9rx 1y ago
  Your half of the definition is implied, but uninteresting. They would not see the 100B economic impact without your definition being realized. But what is curious about it is that it is also not to be considered AGI without meeting the value marker. "a highly autonomous system that can outperform humans at most economically valuable work." alone is not sufficient.
  - famouswaffles 1y ago
    >Your half of the definition is implied, but uninteresting. How is it uninteresting? Open AI had revenue of $12B last year without monetizing literally hundreds of millions of free users in any way whatsoever (not even ads). Microsoft's cloud revenue has exploded in the last few years off the back of AI model services. Let's not even get into the other players. 100B in economic impact is more than achievable with the technology we have today right now. That half is the interesting part.
    - 9rx 1y ago
      > Open AI had revenue of $12B last year And it could have been $1T for all anyone cares. The impact was delivered by humans. This is about impact delivered by AGI.
      - famouswaffles 1y ago
        That makes no sense. Money generated by direct usage is economic impact by the model. If you use GPT-N substantially in your work, then saying that impact rests solely on you is nonsensical.
        9rx 1y ago
        > Money generated by direct usage is economic impact by the model. But not at the "hand" of AGI. Perhaps you forgot to read your very own definition? Notably the "autonomous" part. When AGI is set free and starts up "Closed I", generating $12B in economic value without humans steering the wheel, we will be (well, I will be, at least!) throughly impressed. But Microsoft won't be. They won't consider it AGI until it does $100B. > If you use GPT-N substantially in your work, then saying that impact rests solely on you is nonsensical. And if you use a hammer substantially in your work to generate $100B in value, a hammer is AGI according to you? You can hold that idea, but that's not what anyone else is talking about. The primary indicator of AGI, as you even said yourself, is autonomy.
        famouswaffles 1y ago
        Maybe you missed the part where I explicitly said that wasn't their definition ? “A highly autonomous system that outperforms humans at most economically valuable work.” is what's in their charter. $100B in profits is a separate agreement with Microsoft that makes no mention of autonomity. >And if you use a hammer substantially in your work to generate $100B in value, a hammer is AGI according to you? You can hold that idea, but that's not what anyone else is talking about. The primary indicator of AGI, as you even said yourself, is autonomy. The primary indicator of AGI is whatever you want it to be. The words themselves make no promises of autonomity, simply an intelligence general in nature. We are simply discussing Open AI's definitions.

Thanks for pointing that out, I missed that. Very curious how they'll measure that. Given they're in the double-digit billions of revenue I'd assume they can reason they'll be there very soon.

throwanem 1y ago

Who knew we've had AGI for something like three hundred years? (Or, only had NGI for so long?)

wavemode 1y ago

Does it count if the impact is negative?

famouswaffles 1y ago

That not their definition of AGI. It's "a highly autonomous system that can outperform humans at most economically valuable work."

9rx 1y ago
Your half of the definition is implied, but uninteresting. They would not see the 100B economic impact without your definition being realized. But what is curious about it is that it is also not to be considered AGI without meeting the value marker. "a highly autonomous system that can outperform humans at most economically valuable work." alone is not sufficient.
- famouswaffles 1y ago
  >Your half of the definition is implied, but uninteresting. How is it uninteresting? Open AI had revenue of $12B last year without monetizing literally hundreds of millions of free users in any way whatsoever (not even ads). Microsoft's cloud revenue has exploded in the last few years off the back of AI model services. Let's not even get into the other players. 100B in economic impact is more than achievable with the technology we have today right now. That half is the interesting part.
  - 9rx 1y ago
    > Open AI had revenue of $12B last year And it could have been $1T for all anyone cares. The impact was delivered by humans. This is about impact delivered by AGI.
    - famouswaffles 1y ago
      That makes no sense. Money generated by direct usage is economic impact by the model. If you use GPT-N substantially in your work, then saying that impact rests solely on you is nonsensical.
      - 9rx 1y ago
        > Money generated by direct usage is economic impact by the model. But not at the "hand" of AGI. Perhaps you forgot to read your very own definition? Notably the "autonomous" part. When AGI is set free and starts up "Closed I", generating $12B in economic value without humans steering the wheel, we will be (well, I will be, at least!) throughly impressed. But Microsoft won't be. They won't consider it AGI until it does $100B. > If you use GPT-N substantially in your work, then saying that impact rests solely on you is nonsensical. And if you use a hammer substantially in your work to generate $100B in value, a hammer is AGI according to you? You can hold that idea, but that's not what anyone else is talking about. The primary indicator of AGI, as you even said yourself, is autonomy.
        famouswaffles 1y ago
        Maybe you missed the part where I explicitly said that wasn't their definition ? “A highly autonomous system that outperforms humans at most economically valuable work.” is what's in their charter. $100B in profits is a separate agreement with Microsoft that makes no mention of autonomity. >And if you use a hammer substantially in your work to generate $100B in value, a hammer is AGI according to you? You can hold that idea, but that's not what anyone else is talking about. The primary indicator of AGI, as you even said yourself, is autonomy. The primary indicator of AGI is whatever you want it to be. The words themselves make no promises of autonomity, simply an intelligence general in nature. We are simply discussing Open AI's definitions.