Ajeya describes a “virtual professional” and says it would count as TAI; some of the criteria in the virtual professional definition are superhuman speed and subhuman cost. I think a rough definition of AGI would be “The virtual professional, except not necessarily fast and cheap.” How does that sound as a definition?
What do you think about chatbots? Do you think sometime in the twenties:
--A billion people will talk to a chatbot every day for fun / friendship (as opposed to Alexa-style assistant stuff)
--At least ten people you know will regularly talk to chatbots for fun
What about self-driving cars? Do you think they’ll happen in the twenties?
What about AI-powered prediction markets and forecasting tournament winners?
Ajeya describes a “virtual professional” and says it would count as TAI; some of the criteria in the virtual professional definition are superhuman speed and subhuman cost. I think a rough definition of AGI would be “The virtual professional, except not necessarily fast and cheap.” How does that sound as a definition?
I’m assuming it also has to be a “single system” (rather than e.g. taking instructions and sending them off to a CAIS-like distributed network of AI systems that then do the thing). We may not build AGI as defined here, but if we instead talk about when we could build it (at reasonable expense and speed), I’d probably put that around or a bit later than the TAI estimate, so 2050 seems like a reasonable number.
Hmm, a billion users who use it nearly every day is quite a lot. I feel like just from a reference class of “how many technologies have a billion users who use it every day” I’d have to give a low probability on that one.
Google Search has 5.4 billion searches per day, which is a majority of the market; so I’m not sure if web search has a billion users who use it nearly every day.
Social media as a general category does seem to have > 1 billion users who use it every day (e.g. Facebook has > 2 billion “daily active users”).
On the other hand, Internet access and usage is increasing, e.g. the most viewed YouTube video today probably has an order of magnitude more views than the most viewed video 8 years ago. Also, it seems not totally crazy for chatbots to significantly replace social media, such that “number of people who use social media” is the right thing to be thinking about.
Still, overall I’d guess no, we probably won’t have a billion people talking to a chatbot every day. Will we have a chatbot that’s fun to talk to? Probably.
At least ten people you know will regularly talk to chatbots for fun
That seems quite a bit more likely, I think I do expect that to happen (especially since I know lots of people who want to keep up-to-date with AI, e.g. I know a couple of people who use GPT-3 for fun).
What about AI-powered prediction markets and forecasting tournament winners?
I don’t know what you mean by this. We already use statistics to forecast tournament winners, and we already have algorithms that can operate on markets (including prediction markets when that’s allowed). So I’m not sure what change from the status quo you’re suggesting.
Nice, thanks!
Ajeya describes a “virtual professional” and says it would count as TAI; some of the criteria in the virtual professional definition are superhuman speed and subhuman cost. I think a rough definition of AGI would be “The virtual professional, except not necessarily fast and cheap.” How does that sound as a definition?
What do you think about chatbots? Do you think sometime in the twenties:
--A billion people will talk to a chatbot every day for fun / friendship (as opposed to Alexa-style assistant stuff)
--At least ten people you know will regularly talk to chatbots for fun
What about self-driving cars? Do you think they’ll happen in the twenties?
What about AI-powered prediction markets and forecasting tournament winners?
I’m assuming it also has to be a “single system” (rather than e.g. taking instructions and sending them off to a CAIS-like distributed network of AI systems that then do the thing). We may not build AGI as defined here, but if we instead talk about when we could build it (at reasonable expense and speed), I’d probably put that around or a bit later than the TAI estimate, so 2050 seems like a reasonable number.
Hmm, a billion users who use it nearly every day is quite a lot. I feel like just from a reference class of “how many technologies have a billion users who use it every day” I’d have to give a low probability on that one.
Google Search has 5.4 billion searches per day, which is a majority of the market; so I’m not sure if web search has a billion users who use it nearly every day.
Social media as a general category does seem to have > 1 billion users who use it every day (e.g. Facebook has > 2 billion “daily active users”).
On the other hand, Internet access and usage is increasing, e.g. the most viewed YouTube video today probably has an order of magnitude more views than the most viewed video 8 years ago. Also, it seems not totally crazy for chatbots to significantly replace social media, such that “number of people who use social media” is the right thing to be thinking about.
Still, overall I’d guess no, we probably won’t have a billion people talking to a chatbot every day. Will we have a chatbot that’s fun to talk to? Probably.
That seems quite a bit more likely, I think I do expect that to happen (especially since I know lots of people who want to keep up-to-date with AI, e.g. I know a couple of people who use GPT-3 for fun).
I don’t know what you mean by this. We already use statistics to forecast tournament winners, and we already have algorithms that can operate on markets (including prediction markets when that’s allowed). So I’m not sure what change from the status quo you’re suggesting.
Yeah, fair enough, a billion is a lot & some of my questions were a bit too poorly specified. Thanks for the answers!