Poll: What needs to happen for us to get to the minimal steps of AGI (description below)

Submitted by FomalhautCalliclea t3_105ayq6 in singularity

Many polls and future predictions center around timelines and years. I thought it might be interesting to rather focus more on the process that happens during that time. If you want to give a year, you can of course put it in the comments. But to me (and this is the idea behind this poll), the "how" matters more than the "what". The reasoning and methodology more than the answer. Because anyone can come up with a year prediction they pulled out of their output chute...

By "minimal steps of AGI", i mean either the first working version of AGI itself or at least the conditions and mechanisms that assure its future existence.

The answers are ranked from most optimistic to most pessimistic.

Of course the amount of things needed do not have a 1 on 1 relation with the timeline: if many things are needed they can happen on a short scale as they can happen on a long one. The same in reverse: if not many things are needed, it can still take years to happen as it can be extremely short. Once again the comments should be very useful.

View Poll

7

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Akimbo333 t1_j3a7kfs wrote

I think that the 2nd option of just having scaling and going multi-modal, is grounds for having a proto-agi and that more breakthroughs are required. At least 3 breakthroughs until AGI.

5

Lone-Pine t1_j3ch73l wrote

I said one breakthrough. They need to have some sort of medium term memory, or continuous learning.

3

Akimbo333 t1_j3drq8w wrote

Yeah but those might be separate breakthroughs though

1

Lone-Pine t1_j3ch218 wrote

Not everyone thinks that more scale is needed. Many people such as Elizeir Yudkowsky believe that scale is actually not part of AGI. EY once said that a true AGI running on a 286 would be enough to be dangerous.

3

FomalhautCalliclea OP t1_j3equ6e wrote

Indeed. But there are things to consider here:

The polls limit the number of options to 6, which forced me to sort of restrict possibilities.

Another guiding line of this poll was to classifiy the complexity of required achievements by increasing difficulty, and scale is all you need often is presented as the "simplest" way.

Finally, the problem with the views of Yudkowsky on that topic (not that they are bad or uninteresting, quite the contrary) are not very specific and he remains a bit silent on how to get to AGI. Some around this sub even have, and quite recently at that, suggested that Robert Miles directed a meme towards Yudkowsky and the likes of him mocking people that thought only additional layers/higher scale was sufficient. And the underlying message is that people that both remain vague (at least in appearance) and are bullish on their AGI timelines like Yudkowsky believe in the shortest easiest way to AGI, ie scale only.

1

ItsTimeToFinishThis t1_j3e8zy3 wrote

Gary Marcus convinced me that an AGI must be able to understand the meaning of words.

2

Superschlenz t1_j3enkcl wrote

Does count re-defining "multi-modal" as being more than just (video, text, image, audio) as one breakthrough?

2

FomalhautCalliclea OP t1_j3eq5mk wrote

It depends on how you envision it: multi-modal can be achieved in one breakthrough, multiple breakthroughs (one after the other for example) or even as not being a breakthrough, ie we already have the technolofy for it (i don't say we do, i give the example of a position).

The thing some might not know here is that the number of possibilities in a poll here are limited to 6, which constrained my choices a bit as you might guess and forced me to be synthetic.

1

ItsTimeToFinishThis t1_j3e8uor wrote

"breakthroughs" and "new fundamental concepts" are the same thing.

0

FomalhautCalliclea OP t1_j3epto2 wrote

Not necessarily: by breakthrough i meant something we know is physically possible but we don't know how to make it yet (like nuclear fusion), whereas "new fundamental concepts" means a change in paradigm, akin to darwinian evolution's discovery, an association of concepts that is independent of technology, ideas we can't even conceive right now because of lack of words.

1

[deleted] t1_j3eb9jq wrote

[removed]

−2

FomalhautCalliclea OP t1_j3erqxl wrote

An argumentation to such a lapidary statement would have made your post much more interesting.

You should also abstain yourself of judging who is skeptical and who is overly optimistic: i lean quite heavily on the former side. And you would be surprised at the amount of critical povs that get upvoted here.

Finally, arguing against the roganites is the most constructive way of putting forward your ideas, instead of being a cliché of a 1990's curmurdgeon neckbeard programmer.

2

[deleted] t1_j3gyjpe wrote

[removed]

−1

FomalhautCalliclea OP t1_j3j0sal wrote

You managed to do worse than a post without arguments : a post without arguments but with strawmen.

I never state that multi-modality brings "intelligence" to those models.

Breakthroughs haven't happened yet (congratulations, you have a notion of time !), but we can expect them in some fields or areas of interests, like the nuclear fusion example could have made you guess : we don't know exactly how to produce the mechanism (or if it's even possible), but we know on what general issues we need to work.

As for your speculations about my knowledge, maybe you should start trying to understand what is written before speculating on things you can't have access to.

The only one here that is speculating is you : the options my poll propose are different from each other and do not represent my opinions, otherwise, the sixth ("it's impossible") would contradict the 5 first ones.

But understanding and speculating do not seem to be your best skills...

>maybe you should actually learn

those skills.

1

[deleted] t1_j3kdx34 wrote

[removed]

0

FomalhautCalliclea OP t1_j3l5p9t wrote

>you included it as an answer in a poll about the steps to get to “intelligence” like it somehow matters

The precise goal of a poll is to present every opinion, even the ones you deem as ludicrous and don't have as your own. Your reaction would be as if you saw a political poll listing options from far-left to far-right and were revolted that the author was far-right because the option was included.

Your writing manages to be messy and short at the same time, just like your reasoning and reading abilities.

Even better, you lack self-awareness, being the very one that used insults.

You reproach others of not knowing what they're talking about when you didn't even understand what they were saying nor the very concept of a poll.

You're having a conversation in an alternate reality with yourself, so i'll let you guys have fun between yourselves.

1