“STEM-level” is a type error: STEM is not a level, it is a domain. Do you mean STEM at highschool-level? At PhD-level? At the level of all of humanity put together but at 100x speed?
The definition I give in the post is “AI that has the basic mental machinery required to do par-human reasoning about all the hard sciences”. In footnote 3, I suggest the alternative definition “AI that can match smart human performance in a specific hard science field, across all the scientific work humans do in that field”.
By ‘matching smart human performance… across all the scientific work humans do in that field’ I don’t mean to require that there literally be nothing humans can do that the AI can’t match. I do expect this kind of AI to quickly (or immediately) blow humans out of the water, but the threshold I have in mind is more like:
STEM-level AGI is AI that’s at least as scientifically productive as a human scientist who makes a variety of novel, original contributions to a hard-science field that requires understanding the physical world well. E.g., it can go toe-to-toe with highly productive human scientists on applying its abstract theories to real-world phenomena, using scientific ideas to design new tech, designing physical experiments, operating equipment, and generating new ideas that turn out to be true and that importantly advance the frontiers of our knowledge.
The way I’m thinking about the threshold, AI doesn’t have to be Nobel-prize-level, but it has to be “fully doing science”. I’d also be happy with a definition like ‘AI that can reason about the physical world in general’, but I think that emphasizing hard-science tasks makes it clearer why I’m not thinking of GPT-4 as ‘reasoning about the physical world in general’ in the relevant sense.
“STEM-level” is a type error: STEM is not a level, it is a domain. Do you mean STEM at highschool-level? At PhD-level? At the level of all of humanity put together but at 100x speed?
The definition I give in the post is “AI that has the basic mental machinery required to do par-human reasoning about all the hard sciences”. In footnote 3, I suggest the alternative definition “AI that can match smart human performance in a specific hard science field, across all the scientific work humans do in that field”.
By ‘matching smart human performance… across all the scientific work humans do in that field’ I don’t mean to require that there literally be nothing humans can do that the AI can’t match. I do expect this kind of AI to quickly (or immediately) blow humans out of the water, but the threshold I have in mind is more like:
STEM-level AGI is AI that’s at least as scientifically productive as a human scientist who makes a variety of novel, original contributions to a hard-science field that requires understanding the physical world well. E.g., it can go toe-to-toe with highly productive human scientists on applying its abstract theories to real-world phenomena, using scientific ideas to design new tech, designing physical experiments, operating equipment, and generating new ideas that turn out to be true and that importantly advance the frontiers of our knowledge.
The way I’m thinking about the threshold, AI doesn’t have to be Nobel-prize-level, but it has to be “fully doing science”. I’d also be happy with a definition like ‘AI that can reason about the physical world in general’, but I think that emphasizing hard-science tasks makes it clearer why I’m not thinking of GPT-4 as ‘reasoning about the physical world in general’ in the relevant sense.