Coming out of a public American high school, it's a big increase. It's not as if I don't have time for fun or anything, after all, here I am having a conversation with someone on Reddit, but it's certainly not for those who can't manage their time well.

And in this case it doesn't actually mean human intelligence per se. Again, though, both terms belong in comic books, and reflect a poor understanding of the technology or an effort to obfuscate its processes and capabilities.

I never said AGI wasn’t. The phrase “artificial general intelligence” means nothing without defining what general means.

Wow is the workload really that bad there?

But have you ever seen an ape turn into a human?

There's a reason why MIT is known for high suicide rates, but luckily I have a goal that keeps me motivated to push through all of the work. I haven't gotten into any of the super in-depth concepts yet, but just being here and going through the basics that I know will build to something far greater gives me an indescribable sense of hope and dedication that has really made me feel fulfilled. I'm also looking into participating in an Undergraduate Research Opportunity (UROP) at the Center for Brains Minds and Machines to get some practical experience with doing research in the field.

What about a society or corporation of AGI working in concert?

Nah. That's just boosted intelligence. Superintelligence compared to human intelligence should be like human intelligence compared to animal intelligence. There probably would have to be phase difference between those two assuming intelligence has levels and phase transitions and isn't a completely continous spectrum.

No, AGI is Artificial General Intelligence and neither term is actually particularly useful. They indicate a childish conception of the technology in question.

Totally possible. Humans love to ascribe our intelligence as something supernatural because it makes us feel special in a giant Universe that doesn't care about us. If we continue the path we're on now, we absolutely WILL end up developing something that will surpass us in intelligence by magnitudes.

​

We are animals; a species of great ape. We're about as bound(currently) to our biology as the rest of the creatures on this rock. We simply have a relatively larger amount of processing power in the head to do more complex tasks, which include self-awareness and the questioning of reality. We've already used our technology to overcome nature in more ways than one, so why should it stop with brain power?

thank you for the summary OP!

AGI on a faster GPU, with more storage and memory = ASI?

A lot of these models are under-trained

https://www.deepmind.com/publications/an-empirical-analysis-of-compute-optimal-large-language-model-training

and seem to be forming a type of "lossy" text compression, where their ability to memorize data is both poorly understood, and accomplished using only a fraction of the information-theoretic capacity of the model design

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.08232.pdf

Also, as indicated in the first citation above, it turns out that the quality of large language models is more determined by the size and quality of the training set rather than the size of the model itself.

Again I think we are running up against a semantics issue.

What percentage of human activity would you need to class the thing as 'general'

Because some people argue anything "below 100%" != 'general' and thus 'narrow' by elimination.

Personally I think it's reasonable if you've loaded a system with all the ways ML works currently/all the published papers and task it with spitting out a more optimal system it just might do so. All without being able to do a lot of the things that would be classed as human level intelligence. There are whole swaths of data concerning human matters that it would not need to train on or that the system would in no way need to be middling-expert at.

How is it?

At least you had the strength to admit it lol

I imagine at some point LLMs will be paired with tools that can handle the things they themselves are poor at. Instead of remembering that 3 + 4 = 8 the way it has to today, it will outsource such operations to a calculator which will tell it that the answer is actually 7. That ChatGPT can't do that today and still does as well as it does is actually pretty impressive, but... occasionally you still get an 8 where you really want a solidly dependable 7.

These are the early days. There is still some work to be done.

I'd like to see what those three Notes in the graph are referencing. Perhaps Alex Net and some of the OpenAI events?

This guy AI’s

I agree there's a parallel with other technologies: guns, the internet, publishing, flight, nuclear technology, fire. The difference is scope and scale. ChatGPT is not actual A.I., it does not "think" or attempt to in any way. It's not sentient, sapient, or intelligent. It just predicts which words should be used in what order based on what humans have written.

But once you get to something that even resembles humans or A.I., something that is able to put out content that could pass for human, that's an increase in the order of magnitude for technology.

Guns can't pass the Turing test. ChatGPT can. Video evidence, as a reliable object in society, has less than 5 years to live. That will have ramifications in media, culture, law, and politics that are inconceivable to us today. Think about the difference between a Star Trek communicator in the 1960s tv show compared to a smart phone of today.

To be clear, I'm not advocating that we go ahead and deploy this technology, that's not my point. I'm saying you can't use it without accepting the downsides, and we don't know what those downsides are. We're still not past racism. Or killing people for racism. It's the 21st century and we still don't give everyone food, or shelter. And both of those things are policy decisions that are 100% a choice. It's not an economic or physical constraint.

We are not mature enough to handle this technology responsibly. But we've got it. And it doesn't go back in the bottle. It will be deployed, regardless of whether it should be or not. I'm just pointing out that the angst, the wringing of hands, is performative and futile.

Instead of trying to make the most robust technology we've ever known the first perfect one, that does no harm, we should spend our effort researching what those harms will be and educating people about them. Because it will be upon us all in 5 years or less, and that's not a lot of time.

Undergrad. I studied a bunch of CS in high school and am continuing as part of the CogSci degree. Officially, the program is a combination of their CS and Neuroscience program.

A human brain needs to fit in a skull. A computer has no such restrictions.

It’s simple. AGI is human level intelligence. ASI is superhuman level intelligence

It's a percentage scale

If what you say is true, then you have my admiration and respect. The work you plan to do is the most important work in the history of our planet. You will save infinite lives, there is no better work. Are you undergrad or grad and are you studying computer science as well?