Quite a good piece, and I do/did have a technology background, (I am retired). In regards to AGI, I am a little surprised that no one mentions the Turing test, which was developed by Alan Turing, as a meaningful benchmark for assessing AGI. It is straight forwardly simple. One communicates with an entity that is not seen or heard, it is …
Quite a good piece, and I do/did have a technology background, (I am retired). In regards to AGI, I am a little surprised that no one mentions the Turing test, which was developed by Alan Turing, as a meaningful benchmark for assessing AGI. It is straight forwardly simple. One communicates with an entity that is not seen or heard, it is behind a door so to speak. The tester queries the entity and carrys on a converstation and tires to determine if it is another human or AI. When one can't tell the difference AI has passed the test. In my own experience with chatGPT, there always questions that easily trip it up. As the piece points out the expertise window is rather narrow. An additional issue is power consumption. The requirements are enormous. It takes a certain amount of mass to produce the unit of energy to compute a byte. David Foster Wallace cited an individual who calculated that if the entire mass of the planet where devoted to computational power it tops out at 2.54 x 10^192 concurrent one byte computuaions, if I am recollecting correctly. In other words, the number of "smart AI brains" that can be operated and at what cost are highly relevant and bounded questions.
Quite a good piece, and I do/did have a technology background, (I am retired). In regards to AGI, I am a little surprised that no one mentions the Turing test, which was developed by Alan Turing, as a meaningful benchmark for assessing AGI. It is straight forwardly simple. One communicates with an entity that is not seen or heard, it is behind a door so to speak. The tester queries the entity and carrys on a converstation and tires to determine if it is another human or AI. When one can't tell the difference AI has passed the test. In my own experience with chatGPT, there always questions that easily trip it up. As the piece points out the expertise window is rather narrow. An additional issue is power consumption. The requirements are enormous. It takes a certain amount of mass to produce the unit of energy to compute a byte. David Foster Wallace cited an individual who calculated that if the entire mass of the planet where devoted to computational power it tops out at 2.54 x 10^192 concurrent one byte computuaions, if I am recollecting correctly. In other words, the number of "smart AI brains" that can be operated and at what cost are highly relevant and bounded questions.