3 ms·

> "ASGI" is still a bit unintuitive It seems that "ASI" ("Artificial Super Intelligence") is in use, maybe it will get further traction. It should imply AGI.

by mdp2021 1mo ago

> "ASGI" is still a bit unintuitive It seems that "ASI" ("Artificial Super Intelligence") is in use, maybe it will get further traction. It should imply AGI. > AGI ... matching average humans Very bad definition. AGI has to implement Intelligence. And to be Intelligent it has to contain the missing pieces. Intelligence is not there - the implementation is unfinished.

dinfinity 1mo ago
> It seems that "ASI" ("Artificial Super Intelligence") is in use, maybe it will get further traction. It should imply AGI. That's why I suggested AEI. > Very bad definition. AGI has to implement Intelligence. And to be Intelligent it has to contain the missing pieces. Are you saying that the average human is missing pieces and thus can't be considered intelligent?
- mdp2021 1mo ago
  > the average human is missing pieces No, I was saying that current technologies with emergent simil-intelligent behaviour miss properties that are necessary to have proper Intelligence. The average human does have atrophied abilities, compared of course to proficient humans. And in fact, we certainly do not aim to simulate average humans. We aim to simulate or actually implement Intelligence.
  - dinfinity 1mo ago
    I see. For which intelligence only tasks do you think an average human performs better than current frontier AI (if any)?
    - mdp2021 1mo ago
      ??? This question makes no sense. We utterly disregard the "average human". There is no comparison (no competition) between the "average human" and an accomplished human. This makes using it as a parameter nonsensical.
      - dinfinity 1mo ago
        A human with an average IQ then. Please try to go with the spirit of the question rather than trying to find some escape from it.
        mdp2021 1mo ago
        Well, explain said "spirit of the question" then, because "human with an average IQ" gets the same reply as above (49606153). Justify why we should have any consideration for the average human etc. in comparison to software systems - I have written we disregard it as a nonsensical parameter. "Does Stable Diffusion paint better than John's aunt": we cannot care.
        dinfinity 1mo ago
        It's a very simple experiment: Create a set of intelligence-only tasks with answers that can be easily graded for correctness, then instruct one or more humans with an IQ of about 100 to do the tasks, then compare the performance to that of frontier AI on the same tasks. We should care because "John's aunt" might rely on her paycheck as a professional painter to pay her bills. Many average humans have average jobs, some of which require intelligence (or creative production) only. Ignoring this reality is folly.
        mdp2021 1mo ago
        > Ignoring this reality is part of other concerns. So you meant: "we are already at a point in which many humans can be non-competitive in the professional market". Yes. We were still there some time ago already.
        dinfinity 1mo ago
        I did not mean that, but I'll take it as agreement that we've already achieved AGI if that is defined as being on average more intelligent than average humans.

by mdp2021 1mo ago

dinfinity 1mo ago

> It seems that "ASI" ("Artificial Super Intelligence") is in use, maybe it will get further traction. It should imply AGI. That's why I suggested AEI. > Very bad definition. AGI has to implement Intelligence. And to be Intelligent it has to contain the missing pieces. Are you saying that the average human is missing pieces and thus can't be considered intelligent?

mdp2021 1mo ago
> the average human is missing pieces No, I was saying that current technologies with emergent simil-intelligent behaviour miss properties that are necessary to have proper Intelligence. The average human does have atrophied abilities, compared of course to proficient humans. And in fact, we certainly do not aim to simulate average humans. We aim to simulate or actually implement Intelligence.
- dinfinity 1mo ago
  I see. For which intelligence only tasks do you think an average human performs better than current frontier AI (if any)?
  - mdp2021 1mo ago
    ??? This question makes no sense. We utterly disregard the "average human". There is no comparison (no competition) between the "average human" and an accomplished human. This makes using it as a parameter nonsensical.
    - dinfinity 1mo ago
      A human with an average IQ then. Please try to go with the spirit of the question rather than trying to find some escape from it.
      - mdp2021 1mo ago
        Well, explain said "spirit of the question" then, because "human with an average IQ" gets the same reply as above (49606153). Justify why we should have any consideration for the average human etc. in comparison to software systems - I have written we disregard it as a nonsensical parameter. "Does Stable Diffusion paint better than John's aunt": we cannot care.
        dinfinity 1mo ago
        It's a very simple experiment: Create a set of intelligence-only tasks with answers that can be easily graded for correctness, then instruct one or more humans with an IQ of about 100 to do the tasks, then compare the performance to that of frontier AI on the same tasks. We should care because "John's aunt" might rely on her paycheck as a professional painter to pay her bills. Many average humans have average jobs, some of which require intelligence (or creative production) only. Ignoring this reality is folly.
        mdp2021 1mo ago
        > Ignoring this reality is part of other concerns. So you meant: "we are already at a point in which many humans can be non-competitive in the professional market". Yes. We were still there some time ago already.
        dinfinity 1mo ago
        I did not mean that, but I'll take it as agreement that we've already achieved AGI if that is defined as being on average more intelligent than average humans.