4 ms·

It is very easy to tell if we still need humans in the loop. We still do so its not AGI.

by Jensson 8mo ago

wongarsu 8mo ago
For certain types of "human in the loop". If it can't write working code without a human in the loop then it's not AGI. But a human-level coder also has lots of humans in the loop: a more senior developer doing code review, several layers of management, a product owner that interfaces the project with outside reality, sales people, etc. Now I already hear you typing "but those roles should also be handles by AI if it's AGI" and I agree that an AI that can claim to be AGI should be able to handle those roles (as separate agents if necessary). But in a real setup it probably won't be the best choice to do those roles for cultural and legal reasons. Or it might simply not be cost effective. Not to mention that under most definitions of AGI there can still be humans more capable than the AI, as long as the AI hits the 50th percentile mark or something like that. So even if it's an AGI with the ability to do these roles we will still have humans in the loop for a long long time
- Jensson 8mo ago
  > Now I already hear you typing "but those roles should also be handles by AI if it's AGI" and I agree that an AI that can claim to be AGI should be able to handle those roles (as separate agents if necessary). But in a real setup it probably won't be the best choice to do those roles for cultural and legal reasons. But today you can't do those with AI, meaning the AI isn't AGI. I agree we will probably have humans in the loop here and there even after we achieve AGI for various reasons, but today you need to have humans in the loop it isn't an option not to.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
hirvi74 8mo ago
I am unaware of any definition of AGI that states AGI cannot have humans in the loop.
- Jensson 8mo ago
  If it can't do the work without humans it isn't AGI, since AGI should be able to learn those jobs and then do them as effective as humans that learned those jobs. Intelligence is how well you are able to learn subjects, so an AI that cannot learn what typical white collar humans learn is not an AGI, meaning if it cannot replace the entire office of white collar workers it is not an AGI. > I am unaware of any definition of AGI that states AGI cannot have humans in the loop. Its not the definition but its a trivial result of the most common definition that is "has human level intelligence". AI as in "artificial intelligence", it isn't AS "artificial skills", doing one skill to the same level as a human is not AI, an AI need to be able to learn all skills humans can learn to the same levels.

It is very easy to tell if we still need humans in the loop. We still do so its not AGI.

by Jensson 8mo ago

It is very easy to tell if we still need humans in the loop. We still do so its not AGI.

For certain types of "human in the loop". If it can't write working code without a human in the loop then it's not AGI. But a human-level coder also has lots of humans in the loop: a more senior developer doing code review, several layers of management, a product owner that interfaces the project with outside reality, sales people, etc. Now I already hear you typing "but those roles should also be handles by AI if it's AGI" and I agree that an AI that can claim to be AGI should be able to handle those roles (as separate agents if necessary). But in a real setup it probably won't be the best choice to do those roles for cultural and legal reasons. Or it might simply not be cost effective. Not to mention that under most definitions of AGI there can still be humans more capable than the AI, as long as the AI hits the 50th percentile mark or something like that. So even if it's an AGI with the ability to do these roles we will still have humans in the loop for a long long time

Jensson 8mo ago
> Now I already hear you typing "but those roles should also be handles by AI if it's AGI" and I agree that an AI that can claim to be AGI should be able to handle those roles (as separate agents if necessary). But in a real setup it probably won't be the best choice to do those roles for cultural and legal reasons. But today you can't do those with AI, meaning the AI isn't AGI. I agree we will probably have humans in the loop here and there even after we achieve AGI for various reasons, but today you need to have humans in the loop it isn't an option not to.
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]

hirvi74 8mo ago

I am unaware of any definition of AGI that states AGI cannot have humans in the loop.

Jensson 8mo ago
If it can't do the work without humans it isn't AGI, since AGI should be able to learn those jobs and then do them as effective as humans that learned those jobs. Intelligence is how well you are able to learn subjects, so an AI that cannot learn what typical white collar humans learn is not an AGI, meaning if it cannot replace the entire office of white collar workers it is not an AGI. > I am unaware of any definition of AGI that states AGI cannot have humans in the loop. Its not the definition but its a trivial result of the most common definition that is "has human level intelligence". AI as in "artificial intelligence", it isn't AS "artificial skills", doing one skill to the same level as a human is not AI, an AI need to be able to learn all skills humans can learn to the same levels.