This is a special post for quick takes by ShowMeTheProbability. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.
3 comments, sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

The lack of falsification criteria for AGI (unresearched rant)

Situation: Lots if people are talking about AGI, and AGI safety but nobody can point to one. This is a Serious Problem, and a sign that you are confused.

Problem:

  • Currently proposed AGI tests are ad-hoc nonsense (https://intelligence.org/2013/08/11/what-is-agi/)
  • Historically when these tests are passed the goalposts are shifted (Turning test was passed by fooling humans, which is incredibly subjective and relatively easy).

Solution:

  • A robust and scalable test of abstract cognitive ability.
  • A test that could be passed by a friendly AI in such a way as to communicate co-operative intent, without all the humans freaking out.

Would anyone be interested in such a test so that we can detect the subject of our study?

Becoming capable of building such a test is essentially the entire field of AI alignment. (yes, we don't have the ability to build such a test and that's bad, but the difficulty lives in the territory. MIRI's previously stated goal were specifically to become less confused)

Thanks for the feedback!

I'll see if my random idea can be formalised in such a way to constitute a (hard) test of cognition which is satisfying to humans.