Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

eldenrim t1_j4kmltf wrote

Reply to comment by TrueBirch in [P] I built Adrenaline, a debugger that fixes errors and explains them with GPT-3 by jsonathan

I'm curious how you feel about the following:

There are humans that can't do the task you outlined. Why use it as a metric for AGI? Put in other words, what about a "less intelligent" AGI, that crawls before it walks? An AGI equivalent to a human with lower IQ, or some similar measurement that correlates with not being capable of the same things as those in your example?

Second, if an A.I can do 80% of what a human can, and a human can do 10% of what an A.I can, would you still claim the system isn't an AGI? As in, if humans can do X, A.I can do X * 100 things, but there's a venn diagram with some things unique to humans and many things unique to A.I, does it not count because you can point to human examples of tasks it cannot complete?

Finally, considering a human system has to account for things irrelevant to an AGI (body homeostasis with heart rate and such, immune system, etc) and an AGI can build on code before it, what do you see as the barrier to AGI? Is it not a matter of time?

1

TrueBirch t1_j4kv71p wrote

I think "AGI" is a silly concept overall and never really happening. Computers are good at doing things in different ways from humans. Rather than chasing AGI, you can make a lot more of an impact by leveraging a computer's strengths and avoiding its weaknesses.

For my example, I picked an occupation with an average salary south of $30,000/year (source). I'm not saying everybody can do it, but the market puts a price on this kind of labor that suggests many people can do it. A true AGI system could replicate how a low-salary human does a job. In reality, a computerized system would use a few wireless sensors that call home instead of physically driving around looking at fields.

Similarly, consider meter readers, another low-wage job. Imagine what it would take to create a robot that could drive from house to house, get out of the car, find the power meter, gently move anything blocking it, and take a reading. Instead, utilities use smart meters that call home. It's cheaper, more reliable, and simpler.

It's beyond hard to create a true AGI system, and there are plenty of ways to make tons of money with application-specific systems.

1

eldenrim t1_j4l7ilw wrote

I'm currently interested in ML to alleviate the suffering of my disabled partner and myself, I just enjoy theoretical discussion with AGI.

Maybe making money will come later. :)

1

TrueBirch t1_j4ldkum wrote

I'm talking about where the funding is going. Anything remotely approaching AGI would require billions and billions of dollars of funding.

1

eldenrim t1_j4lfc8z wrote

So you don't think that repeatedly making narrow AI, and then at some point bundling them together, is a valid way to get to AGI?

1

TrueBirch t1_j4qdbf2 wrote

It'll be something entirely new, but not capable of doing everything that my toddler can do. Systems will be designed to avoid those weaknesses. Again, think about replacing meter readers with cheap sensors instead of expensive robots.

1