undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdjoldman18d ago0 comments

That definition is as I said: "something about which no conclusions can be drawn because the proposed definitions lack sufficient precision and completeness."

"Highly autonomous systems" and "most economically valuable work" aren't precise enough to be useful.

"Highly" implies that there is a continuum, so where does directed end and autonomy begin?

"Most economically valuable work"... each word in that has wiggle room, not to mention that any reasonable interpretation of it is a shifting goalpost as the work done by humans over history has shifted a great deal.

The point is that none of this is defined in a way so that people can agree that something has AGI/ASI/etc. or not. If people can't agree then there's no point in talking about it.

EDIT: interestingly, the OpenAI definition of AGI specifically means that a subset of humans do not have AGI.

0 comments

daxfohl17d ago

I think you can say if human engineers still exist, it's hard to claim we have AGI. If human engineers have been entirely replaced, then it's hard to claim we don't have AGI.

kgwgk17d ago

Because they are doing most of the economically valuable work?

daxfohl17d ago

No, independently of OpenAI's definition. If we have AGI there's no reason we'd need to have humans working jobs that only involve typing stuff into a computer and going to meetings all day*. And if all those jobs are eliminated, I guess we'll have bigger problems than to debate whether we've achieved AGI or not.

* Which is a much larger class of jobs than just engineering. And also excludes field engineers and other types of engineers that need a physical body for interacting with customers, etc.**

** Though even then, you could in theory divvy up the engineering part and the customer interaction part of the job, where the human that's doing the interaction part is primarily a proxy to the engineering agent that's in his earbud.

1 more reply

xmcqdpt217d ago

By the definition above, it is possible to have AGI that is also much more expensive to run than human engineers.

nomel18d ago

It's a definition based on practical results. That's a good definition, because it doesn't require we already know the exact implementation. It doesn't require guessing, in a literal "put your money where your mouth is" way.

If it can do things as good as or better than humans, then either the AI has a type of general intelligence or the human does not.

Defining capabilities based on outcome rather than implementation should be very familiar to an engineer, of any kind, because that's how every unsolved implementation must start.

godelski17d ago

  > If it can do things as good as or better than humans, then either the AI has a type of general intelligence or the human does not.

I don't buy that.

By your definition every machine has a type of general intelligence. Not just a bog standard calculator, but also my broom. It doesn't matter if you slap "smart" on the side, I'm not going to call my washing machine "intelligent". Especially considering it's over a decade old.

I don't think these definitions make anything any clearer. If anything, they make them less. They equate humans to mindless automata. They create AGI by sly definition and let the proposer declare success arbitrarily.

nomel17d ago

Sorry, I assumed the context was cleared, with the article above. Here's what I meant:

> If it can do things as good as or better than humans, in general, then either the AI has a type of general intelligence ...

1 more reply

tbrownaw17d ago

What is the as-of date on what work is economically valuable and how much is available?

nomel17d ago

Sorry, I don't understand the question, or how it relates.

Are you asking for the current understanding of what specific parts of human intelligence are economically valuable?

2 more replies

irishcoffee17d ago

Do you know how an LLM works? Can you describe it?

nomel17d ago

Sorry, what do current LLM architectures have to do with this? It should be extremely clear to you that current LLM don't fit this definition. If they did, we wouldn't be having this conversation!!!!

esafak17d ago

Do you know how the human brain works? That science is still in its infancy but that's not stopped us.

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsdjoldman18d ago0 comments

That definition is as I said: "something about which no conclusions can be drawn because the proposed definitions lack sufficient precision and completeness."

"Highly autonomous systems" and "most economically valuable work" aren't precise enough to be useful.

"Highly" implies that there is a continuum, so where does directed end and autonomy begin?

The point is that none of this is defined in a way so that people can agree that something has AGI/ASI/etc. or not. If people can't agree then there's no point in talking about it.

EDIT: interestingly, the OpenAI definition of AGI specifically means that a subset of humans do not have AGI.

0 comments

daxfohl17d ago

I think you can say if human engineers still exist, it's hard to claim we have AGI. If human engineers have been entirely replaced, then it's hard to claim we don't have AGI.

kgwgk17d ago

Because they are doing most of the economically valuable work?

daxfohl17d ago

* Which is a much larger class of jobs than just engineering. And also excludes field engineers and other types of engineers that need a physical body for interacting with customers, etc.**

1 more reply

xmcqdpt217d ago

By the definition above, it is possible to have AGI that is also much more expensive to run than human engineers.

nomel18d ago

If it can do things as good as or better than humans, then either the AI has a type of general intelligence or the human does not.

Defining capabilities based on outcome rather than implementation should be very familiar to an engineer, of any kind, because that's how every unsolved implementation must start.

godelski17d ago

  > If it can do things as good as or better than humans, then either the AI has a type of general intelligence or the human does not.

I don't buy that.

nomel17d ago

Sorry, I assumed the context was cleared, with the article above. Here's what I meant:

> If it can do things as good as or better than humans, in general, then either the AI has a type of general intelligence ...

1 more reply

tbrownaw17d ago

What is the as-of date on what work is economically valuable and how much is available?

nomel17d ago

Sorry, I don't understand the question, or how it relates.

Are you asking for the current understanding of what specific parts of human intelligence are economically valuable?

2 more replies

irishcoffee17d ago

Do you know how an LLM works? Can you describe it?

nomel17d ago

Sorry, what do current LLM architectures have to do with this? It should be extremely clear to you that current LLM don't fit this definition. If they did, we wouldn't be having this conversation!!!!

esafak17d ago

Do you know how the human brain works? That science is still in its infancy but that's not stopped us.

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse