In 2020 the average number of days that Americans teleworked doubled from 2.4 to 5.8 per month. If we assume that 100% of that work could be done by AGI and that all of those working days were replaced in a single year, that would be a 29% boost to productivity, just barely above the 25%/year growth definition of TAI.
It is unlikely that 100% of such work can be automated (for example at-home learning makes up a large fraction of telework). And much of what can be automated will be automated long before we reach AGI (travel agents, real estate, …).
I’m not sure how putting AGI on existing robots makes them automatically more useful? Neither my roomba nor car manufacturing robots (to pick two extremes) can be greatly improved by additional intelligence. Undoubtedly self-driving cars would be much easier (perhaps trival) to implement given AGI, but self-driving cars are almost certainly a less than AGI-hard task. Did you have some particular examples in mind of existing robots that need/benefit from AGI specifically?
In 2020 the average number of days that Americans teleworked doubled from 2.4 to 5.8 per month. If we assume that 100% of that work could be done by AGI and that all of those working days were replaced in a single year, that would be a 29% boost to productivity, just barely above the 25%/year growth definition of TAI.
It is unlikely that 100% of such work can be automated (for example at-home learning makes up a large fraction of telework). And much of what can be automated will be automated long before we reach AGI (travel agents, real estate, …).
I’m not sure how putting AGI on existing robots makes them automatically more useful? Neither my roomba nor car manufacturing robots (to pick two extremes) can be greatly improved by additional intelligence. Undoubtedly self-driving cars would be much easier (perhaps trival) to implement given AGI, but self-driving cars are almost certainly a less than AGI-hard task. Did you have some particular examples in mind of existing robots that need/benefit from AGI specifically?