Generally the benchmark for AGI has been “human level intelligence” meaning that from there on AI is also the best AI researcher and human input is no longer needed in developing it. That’s where the concept of singularity or intelligence explosion stems from.
The narrative here tends to be that it goes from AGI to ASI (Artificial Super Intelligence) very rapidly but in my view there’s not a significant difference between the two. AI that is as intelligent as a human but not more would still process information about a million times faster so effectively it would still be superintelligent.
I disagree on the speed. The “human level intelligence” would be about as fast as a human on tasks. It might do them very differently, so it could be superhumanly fast at some things like reading a whole book.
The thing that I doubt is that this would create the prophecised feedback loop. Sure, the AI could be a bit better than a human at further developing itself but it is probably also really hard to increase the intelligence.
One thing that can’t be denied is that AGI could be taught once and then cloned instead of all the work that goes into training humans.
That makes sense. That said, I’m not sure superintelligence is just a matter of processing speed. It’s an interesting question - give me a complex problem and say a thousand years to work on it. I kinda feel there’s some problems I’m just not equipped to solve, no matter how much processing time I have. But of course, that’s impossible to test. And in computer terms, you could copy a whole team of me to work together. Hmm.
Yeah, I concur that the difference between AGI and ASI is likely moot. If an intelligent machine is able to upgrade itself to be more intelligent - well, I think we’d all do that if we could! I’m not sure that more intelligence and faster processing are the same thing, but I’m also not sure that we could distinguish between the two in practical terms.
Generally the benchmark for AGI has been “human level intelligence” meaning that from there on AI is also the best AI researcher and human input is no longer needed in developing it. That’s where the concept of singularity or intelligence explosion stems from.
The narrative here tends to be that it goes from AGI to ASI (Artificial Super Intelligence) very rapidly but in my view there’s not a significant difference between the two. AI that is as intelligent as a human but not more would still process information about a million times faster so effectively it would still be superintelligent.
I disagree on the speed. The “human level intelligence” would be about as fast as a human on tasks. It might do them very differently, so it could be superhumanly fast at some things like reading a whole book.
The thing that I doubt is that this would create the prophecised feedback loop. Sure, the AI could be a bit better than a human at further developing itself but it is probably also really hard to increase the intelligence.
One thing that can’t be denied is that AGI could be taught once and then cloned instead of all the work that goes into training humans.
That makes sense. That said, I’m not sure superintelligence is just a matter of processing speed. It’s an interesting question - give me a complex problem and say a thousand years to work on it. I kinda feel there’s some problems I’m just not equipped to solve, no matter how much processing time I have. But of course, that’s impossible to test. And in computer terms, you could copy a whole team of me to work together. Hmm.
Yeah, I concur that the difference between AGI and ASI is likely moot. If an intelligent machine is able to upgrade itself to be more intelligent - well, I think we’d all do that if we could! I’m not sure that more intelligence and faster processing are the same thing, but I’m also not sure that we could distinguish between the two in practical terms.