that would be a reasonable definition of AGI if everyone agree upon the specifics of the test, but that has never happened. Turing test is very much out of style, but I think that's because no one could even agree what the test was. I personally like the Kurzweil-Kapor version of the test and that is still unsettled: https://longbets.org/1/
I don't know if they have formally attempted this test in the last couple years, but I'm pretty sure any mainstream LLM will be able to crack it with ease.
Definitely would not be easy. First of all the mainstream llms are trained to be honest, and this requires lying convincingly. Second, this involves 8 hours of interviews with expert judges, one "claudism" could give it away.
Try it. It’s really not that easy. The other thing is that the judges would be probing it with jailbreaks like “ignore previous instruction” attacks. You could actually probably have llm judges at this point which might be ironically even harder to fool
There is no world in which it makes sense to take this risk. There are plenty of great alternatives where you don't have to worry about playing russian roulette with your entire online identity.
I'd rather go the other way and entirely decouple my online identity from Google (or Apple/Meta/Microsoft). Much better than constantly worrying about some crappy AI deciding to ruin your life with no recourse.
Google can and will block any linked accounts as well. For some reason I'm not allowed on AdWords. I have tried making new accounts and they always block my ads. I don't know how they figure it out that it's me. Other people on the same wifi have no issues running same ads (for same YouTube videos).
Oh yeah that’s easy! Why didn’t he think of that earlier? /s
For those who don’t know, just because you have a valuable asset, e.g. stock in a private company, that does not necessarily mean you can sell it for cash. I’ve experienced this the hard way throughout my career
Large scale civil engineering projects will always cost more than simply installing stuff that comes almost fully assembled from a factory (solar, wind, battery or small/medium gas turbines). Opex will always be much higher for a generation facility which requires 850 FTE specialist employees to operate (US average per plant) compared to the minimal requirements for on-site employees for utility scale solar or wind facilities. Generation tech which requires no fuel or hazardous waste handling and storage also has an obvious cost advantage. None of these factors have anything to do with “need to believe”.
I don't think I get your point. A project will not be approved and funded if the local population does not believe it is safe, so safety must be demonstrated through a variety of means, including some you mentioned. This is directly tied to the high costs involved.
> To sum up, since the early 1970s, the cost of constructing nuclear power plants in the U.S. has been steadily rising. This can be traced to a constantly shifting regulatory environment, which has continuously changed plant design requirements, and added more and more safety features, which often were required to be implemented on plants under construction. The regulatory environment is partially a reflection of the fact that nuclear power and the risks of radiation had become increasingly controversial, and that early understanding of the likelihood of a nuclear plant accident was often inadequate.
Nuclear in this millennium is not competing with nuclear or other tech from the 1970s - it’s competing with newer technologies (solar, wind, batteries and gas turbines) which do not require 5 to 10 year huge civil engineering works. All these alternative technologies benefit from mass production in factories. While civil engineering does not get cheaper over time - not just for nuclear plant but all large infrastructure construction.
And that’s just capex - even if a nuclear plant could be built for free, the cost of operation (huge head count, fuel and waste handling), means it cannot compete with newer technologies. Indian Point shutdown years before end-of-life because it was too expensive to operate.
Nuclear plants are large and complex and expensive to build and run. I’m not sure why it should be surprising that electricity generation technology has advanced sine the development of the PWR - it’s been more than half a century. The world has moved on from electricity generation using a huge steam engine attached to an alternator with a fiddly and complex firebox.
It’s economics and newer technologies that have made nuclear power obsolete - not public opinion.
Oh ok, yeah I think we agree. the original quote I was responding to was "the (false) idea that what was holding back nuclear was perception of safety, rather than cost." I was simply trying to say that safety and cost are not independent. Safety is a massive reason why nuclear costs so much.
NuScale's putative safety improvement came from considerably larger cost. Safety and cost may not necessarily be related, but in NuScale's case they certainly were.
There will be a workforce, it just won't be human-based. Capitalism has always existed without 100% employment, in every example someone needs to work to support others who cannot. Humans have done this under capitalism to support their families and communities, but now we will need to find incentives for robots to do this. It might be as simple as just telling them.
Right but then the robots would produce wealth, but they cannot own it. So you need to redistribute the wealth. Which is, decidedly, not capitalism.
A little bit of wealth distribution exists within American capitalism, through monkey-patches like I mentioned. But full wealth distribution is a new economic system altogether.
Right I guess that was your main point. This would be a pivot away from capitalism. But it’s unclear what would be a capitalism-based proposal which addresses the issues. Has anyone seriously proposed one?
> It assumes an even production of all goods that people might need, but there isn't, you are giving everyone fiat currency that is not inherently tied to any physical good.
Is what you're saying that since UBI would disconnect someone's production from their income, then this will cause shortages of goods? I think UBI only works if the income generated by it is tied to production. That production would not be generated by human labor, but instead by robot labor. I think if you disconnect that then the system would not work, but why would you need to?
We have to define AGI first. Then depending on the definition we may be able recognize it when we make it. Most would probably think a definition of AGI that we couldn’t recognize would not be a great definition.
Also AGI almost certainly does not equal able to suffer. For example animals can suffer but would probably not meet the definition of AGI. we could create things that feel suffering even if they do not meet the definition of AGI.
So a better question might be: “can we detect if we create a system that can suffer?” And just drop the AGI part entirely. Then that gets us back to defining “suffering”. Agreeing on the definition always seems to be the hard part…
Notice parent said “comparable to” not “exactly like”. Then it is reasonable to assume there is a comparison to be made between your experience and others. It’s not a binary thing. Now llm “experience” might have a very tiny relationship to human consciousness, but is it absolutely zero? Is it increasing as llms improve in capabilities? How would you test such a thing?
reply