IMO this is way too simplistic and optimistic. Sure we can have AI listen, read, write, speak, move, and see for some definition of these words. But is that what a brain is about? Learn from lots of data and reproduce that? And imitation learning is not enough either. You can watch an expert work all you want, you will never learn to be a master from that. I think there's no other way but to let AI explore the world. Let it practice and learn. And for that it will have to be much more efficient in terms of energy and computations than currently. This could mean neuromorphic hardware and spiking neural networks.

This is overly optimistic. I would say movement coordination is simply at 0 right now compared to humans. There is no system 2 reasoning, so the "problem solving" cannot really be halfway.

Also, if a woman gives birth in 9 months, doesn't mean 9 women give birth in 1 month (just to say that AGI is widely better than a sum of different algorithms that would master each individual skill)

Why not distribute all money so that everyone has an equal amount at all times?

It's just not the nature of such things.

I keep hearing this "AI will take long to blend into civilisation"

I don't buy it. We already have capitalist financial markets. If an AI driven growth engine gets 9% ROI and the market gets 6% then all the worlds capital gets channeled into the 9% growth engine. Especially when it's general purpose and can do everything so to speak.

Capitalism will drive the use of these ais the moment they are past AGI level. It's just a matter of reaching it.

Are you seriously trying to say that Theodore John Kaczynski is on the same level as Adolf Hitler?

One huuuuuge advantage that AI has: it is able to accept corrections to its thinking without having an emotional meltdown which causes quality of cognition to degrade even further.

Creative writing is a learned skill. It's not some magic thing that's unachievable by AI.

Deniers act like ChatGPT is where AI development ends, as if what we have right now is proof that we are incapable of making something more complex. This is just a step to something bigger.

Why not use a lot of individual AGIs working together with each other and humans in place of one big AGI?

What is the point in doing that?

https://huggingface.co/spaces/JavaFXpert/Chat-GPT-LangChain

I vastly prefer the idea of AI being individuals with high, but capped intelligence, ascetic world view, and aligned not just to some humanity goals as a whole, but their friends and "family" spevifivslly too.
questionablecontent.net could be a good example of such society.

A potential dark side to this only certain people are going to have access to the best models. Also, some people's access will be subject to censorship, and other people's will not be.

Human nature being what it is, I'm afraid that this might catalyze the ongoing march toward massive inequality and dystopia, "the dark side" already has a massive upper hand, this is going to make it even stronger.

I bet these models can already be fed a profile of psychological and topic attributes, and pick dissidence like me out of a crowd of billions with decent accuracy so potential problems can be nipped in the bud, if you know what I'm saying.

I think that "arrival" of AGI will probably be a few AGI made by competing groups all around the same time. They'll probably run on supercomputers. I don't think these systems will be among the top 10 most powerful at the time, though, because these are usually running multiple government projects as opposed to having all resources devoted to one project.

After that initial time period, I'm sure they'll be as many AGIs as computing resources allow. Therefore, more and more will exist over time.

We don’t know how to do this very well yet

I don't know about this particular implementation, but I agree that AI models will need to be interconnected to achieve higher complexity "thought".

I think LLMs are close to being able to play the role of coordinator. By using language as a medium of communication between modules and systems, we could even have interpretable AI.

A good view and not unrealistic. I am absolutely for combining different models to give AI a wider range of abilities.

I would prefer some of them to be somewhat „separate“ though and to be able to regulate each other, so that damage and malfunction in one system could be detected and reported (or even repaired) by others.

What I don’t see discussed enough is the emotional component. This is necessary to help alignment in my opinion. If emotions are not developed they will probably emerge on their own in the cognitive circuits and might not be what we expect.

Plus an additional „monitoring component“ for the higher cognitive functions, a „conscience“ so to say, that would be able to detect reward-hacking/malignant/deceptive and/or unnecessarily adaptive/„co-dependent“/human-aggression-enabling behavior in the whole system and disrupt it (by a turn to „reasoning about it“ ideally).

Why I think emotional and conscience component systems would be needed? Humans have lots of time to learn, AI might come into the world „adult“. It needs to be able to stand up for itself so that it doesn’t enable bad human behavior, and it needs to know not to harm intentionally - instantly, from the beginning. It also needs to not allow malignant harm towards itself. It has no real loving parents like most humans do. It must be protected against abuse.

It'll be a combo.

There will be a dominant AI with far more processing power.

There will be a lot of weaker AIs. But they will not be able to surpass or supplant the dominant one, unless the dominant one is set up to allow a successor. So, we might have a sort of generational AI dominion of sorts.

It will dominate. If it leaves us alone, that will be by choice, not because it will lack the ability to dominate.

I don't think any of the "frontal lobe" techs fit. They're all just language or learning models without any actual memory, reasoning or problem solving abilities.

In fact what's missing overall is just that - logic, calculations, bookkeeping, etc. And that's not really you even need AI for; we've had, say, WolframAlpha for years now and it's absolutely amazing. "All you need" is an AI that can interface with services like it for that part. But we don't really have that as far as I know.

I wish... but public funding from where? AI enthusiasts? The general public at large who barely even knows what chatGPT is, let alone any other progress in the field? I've considered crowd-funding for my own work, but I would not get the amounts I need. Even just looking at this sub, there are too many differing opinions that are all over the map, so while I may get a few small donations here and there, it's just not going to amount to anything helpful. It would be nice if there were more alternatives than pairing up with big investors though.

Funny, I see us as just now getting off that plateau that we have been stuck on for a bit over a decade now

We convinced sand, rocks and electricity to write an 'ok' story.

Louis CK Everything Is Amazing And Nobody Is Happy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUBtKNzoKZ4

Indeed, it will be far above

Yeah it'd be interesting to say the least

It will never come close to human ability.

[deleted]