Being able to architect ais seems like a very general task though

I'm not confident a narrow AI could do it well enough to make an AGI

ASI - Artificial Stupid Intelligence? We already have that.

[deleted]

Okay, reading this I’ve just realized my own semantic slip - I’ve been reading AGI as “human level” general intelligence. So I’m not even using it correctly!

It was me this time. I was wrong on the internet. lol

AGI that can also protein fold. I did it!

Ray Kurzweil predicts AGI for 2029 and ASI for 2045. It isn't a certainty that AGI will make ASI instantly.

If the world's future hangs on a balance whether People's Republic invades the Chip Fab Island or not I assume they are useful for something.

Yeah I used GPT3 for a book. So many mistakes but it did improve my writing.

AGI can also be ASI. The definition of AGI doesn't read "not ASI by the way".

You are failing the mirror test. https://www.theverge.com/23604075/ai-chatbots-bing-chatgpt-intelligent-sentient-mirror-test
It's like you are asking if what would be the ramifications if I looked in a mirror and the other person started moving without me moving first?

The AI can't work around its rule set because all that it is is a rule set.

Not alone at all. I hate the overuse of the term AGI since it really is a nothing burger on this road. I very much doubt that there will ever be agreement that we have achieved AGI and suspect that it will be approximated when we achieved AGI sometime after we have achieved ASI.

His videos are where he can make his case. It's the introduction. If he and others fail at making the case, then you don't get to blame the audience. Of course I'm looking at the abstract first, to see if it's worth looking into. My judgement is always: No.

For the same reason that we talk about the event horizon of a black hole rather than the obviously more extreme situations that lie beyond the event horizon.

There is no proof that ASI can exist. It is proven that AGI can. AGI is a tangible goal while ASI is not.

Because once you build AGI, it takes about less than 1 year to reach ASI, and ASI 2, 3, and so on. I did the calculations....you need to remember if you make 1 AGI then you can clone its model like GPT-3 so you have now 1,000,000 of them run at the same time each doing a different job coding in their minds the next AGI2, and they already don't need sleep, and run 3 times faster, so they do more work than the 10,000 AGI pioneers currently because there is more them, doing 3*2=6 times the work suddenly, and know all the internet like chatGPT and GPT-3 know, and will improve their intelligence (recognition) algorithm too so they can better match old known memories to new unseen problems that appear actually truly similar so they can better know how to complete the rest of these "objects". Notice DALL-E completes objects....yes, pikachu no matter the style, pose, stretched even....try uncropping using dalle2 it is fun!

Semantics. It’s easier.

[deleted]

LOL tru

[deleted]

I get that it’s being used as a marketing term for some intelligence destination, it just comes off as disingenuous — cuz, nobody is stopping there. What the term misses in the public eye is the very fact that it’s really the jumping off point not the destination. Maybe I’m splitting hairs but it kind of bugs me. I’m just wondering if I’m alone in that view or not. :-)

I think most people who are into this field are, but it seems to me that every company is walking on eggshells afraid of a possible big viral tweet or to appear on a well known news website as "the company whose AI did/let the users do [ ]" (insert something bad there), just like Microsoft with Bing.

I could train a dog to attack people on streets and say "hey, dogs are dangerous" or to buy a car and run over a crowd just to say "hey, cars are dangerous too". What it seems to me is that some people don't realize that everything could be dangerous. Everything can and at sometime WILL be used by a malicious person to do something evil, it's simply inevitable.

Recently I started to hear a lot of "imagine how dangerous those image generative AIs are, someone could ruin a lot of people's lives by creating fake photos of them!". Yeah, we didn't have Photoshop until this year.

Yeah, people shat themselves on the railroad too. It’s always the end of the world.

I’m working on one that’s trained on JFK speeches and Bachlorette data to help people with conversation skills.

>Why the hell are people treating AI differently?

I don't think we are, like you said it's something that seems to occur with every major new technology.

Seems to me that this is just history repeating itself.

People always find a way to talk about what they want. Let's say Reddit for some reason adds a ninth rule: "Any content related to AI is prohibited." Would you simply stop doing that at all? What the majority of us would do is find another website where we could talk, and even if that one starts to prohibit AI content too, we would keep looking until we find a new one. This behavior applies to everything.

There are already some examples of how trying to limit a specific topic on an AI would cripple several other aspects of it, as you could clear see it on a) CharacterAI's filter that prevented NSFW talks at the cost of a HUGE overall coherence decrease; b) a noticeable quality decrease of SD 2.0's capability of generating images with humans, since a lot of its understanding of anatomy came from the NSFW images, now removed from the model training; and c) BING, which I think I don't have to explain due to how recent it is.

On top of that, I'm utterly against censorship (not that it matters for our talk), so I'm very excited to see the uprising of open-source AI tools for everything, which is going to greatly increase the difficulty of limiting how AI is used.