As an industry, we've already burned through a bunch of buzzwords that are now meaningless marketing-speak. 'ML', 'AI', 'NLP', 'cognitive computing'. Are we going for broke and adding AGI to the list so that nothing means anything any more?
What "threshold" would you want to cross before you think its socially acceptable to put resources behind ensuring that humanity doesn't wipe itself out?
The tricky thing with all of this is we have no idea what an appropriate timeline looks like. We might be 10 years away from the singularity, 1000 years, or it might never ever happen!
There is a non-zero chance that we are a few breakthroughs away from creating a technology that far surpasses the nuclear bomb in terms of destructive potential. These breakthroughs may have a short window of time between each of them (once we know a, knowing b,c,d will be much easier)
So given all of that, wouldn't it make sense to start working on these problems now? And the unfortunate part of working on these problems now is that you do need hype/buzzwords to attract tallent, raise money and get people talking about AGI safety. Sure it might not lead anywhere, but just like fire insurance might seem unnecessary if you never have a fire, AGI research may end up being a useless field altogether but at least it gives us that cushion of safety.
I don't know, but I'd say after a definition of "AGI" has been accepted that can be falsified against, and actually turn it into a scientific endeavour.
> The tricky thing with all of this is we have no idea what an appropriate timeline looks like.
We do. As things are it's undetermined, since we don't even know what's it's supposed to mean.
> So given all of that, wouldn't it make sense to start working on these problems now?
What problems? We can't even define the problems here with sufficient rigor. What's there to discuss?
Uhh, that's the Turing Test.
- Privacy (How do you get an artificial intelligence to recognize, and respect, privacy? What sources is it allowed to use, how must it handle data about individuals? About groups? When should it be allowed to violate/exploit privacy to achieve an objective?)
- Isolation (How much data do you allow it access to? How do you isolate it? What safety measures do you employ to make sure it is never given a connection to the internet where it could, in theory, spread itself not unlike a virus and gain incredibly more processing power as well as make itself effectively undestroyable? How do you prevent it from spreading in the wild and hijacking processing power for itself, leaving computers/phones/appliances/servers effectively useless to the human owners?)
- A kill switch (under what conditions is it acceptable to pull the plug? Do you bring in a cybernetic psychologist to treat it? Do you unplug it? Do you incinerate every last scrap of hardware it was on?)
- Sanity check/staying on mission (how do you diagnose it if it goes wonky? What do you do if it shows signs of 'turning' or going off task?
- Human agents (Who gets to interact with it? How do you monitor them? How do you make sure they aren't being offered bribes for giving it an internet connection or spreading it in the wild? How do you prevent a biotic operator from using it for personal gain while also using it for the company/societal task at hand? What is the maximum amount of time a human operator is allowed to work with the AI? What do you do if the AI shows preference for an individual and refuses to provide results without that individual in attendance? If a human operator is fired, quits or dies and it negatively impacts the AI what do you do?)
This is why I've said elsewhere in this thread, and told Sam Altman, that they need to bring in a team of people that specifically start thinking about these things and that only 10-20% of the people should be computer science/machine learning types.
OpenAI needs a team thinking about these things NOW, not after they've created an AGI or something reaching a decent approximation of one. They need someone figuring out a lot of this stuff for tools they are developing now. Had they told me "we're going to train software on millions of web pages, so that it can generate articles" I would have immediately screamed "PUMP THE BRAKES! Blackhat SEO, Russian web brigades, Internet Water Army, etc etc would immediately use this for negative purposes. Similarly people would use this to churn out massive amounts of semi-coherent content to flood Amazon's Kindle Unlimited, which pays per number of page reads from a pool fund, to rapidly make easy money." I would also have cautioned that it should only be trained on opt-in, vetted, content suggesting that using public domain literature, from a source like Project Gutenberg, would likely have been far safer than the open web.
"We’re partnering to develop a hardware and software platform within Microsoft Azure which will scale to AGI"
Azure needs a few more years just to un-shit the bed with what their marketing team has done and catch up to even basic AWS/GCP analytics offerings. Them talking about AGI is like a toddler talking about building a nuclear weapon. This is the same marketing team that destroyed any meaning behind terms like 'real time', and 'AI'.
No, there is exactly zero chance that anyone is "a few breakthroughs away" from AGI.
I think continual Turing testing is the only way of concluding whether an agent exhibits intelligence or not. Consider the philosophical problem of the existence of other minds. We believe other humans are intelligent because they consistently show intelligent behavior. Things that people claim to be examples of AI right now lack this consistency (possibly excluding a few very specific examples such as AlphaZero). It is quite annoying to see all these senior researchers along with graduate students spend so much time pushing numbers on those datasets without paying enough attention to the fact that pushing numbers is all they are doing.
[1]: As a concrete example, consider the textual entailment (TE) task. In the deep learning era of TE there are two commonly used datasets on which the current state-of-the-art has been claimed to be near or exceeding human performance. What these models are performing seemingly exceptionally well is not the general task of TE, it is the task of TE evaluated on these fixed datasets. A recent paper by McCoy, Pavlick, and Linzen (https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.01007) shows how brittle these systems are that at this point the only sensible response to those insistent on claiming we are nearing human performance in AI is to laugh.
So you think it's impossible to ever determine that a chimpanzee, or even a feral child, exhibits intelligence? This seems rather defeatist.
Actual sentiment analysis is a completely different kind of ML problem than supervised classification 'sentiment analysis' that's popular today but mostly useless for real world applications.
