Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI

Fully autonomous agents are marketing fluff right now, but there is like $10T of TAM from promoting most knowledge workers to a manager and automating the boring 80% of their work, and this doesn’t require this full autonomy. Karpathy’s definition of “agent” here is really AGI (probably somewhere between expert and virtuoso AGI https://arxiv.org/html/2311.02462v2). In my taxonomy you can have non-AGI short-task-timeframe agents. Eg in the METR evals, I think it’s meaningful to talk about agent tasks if you set the thing loose for 4-8h human-time tasks.

The ability to extrapolate from facts. I don't think self awareness, emotions, or senses are required. You should give your definition too, so we can debate where computers fall short. See also: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI (https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02462)

The Wikipedia article on AGI explains it well enough. Researchers at Google have proposed a classification scheme with multiple levels of AGI. There are different opinions in the research community. https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02462

> AGI would mean something which doesn't need direction or guidance to do anything There can be levels of AGI. Google DeepMind have proposed a framework that would classify ChatGPT as "Emerging AGI". ChatGPT can solve problems that it was not explicitly trained to solve, across a vast number of problem domains. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2311.02462 The paper is summarized here https://venturebeat.com/ai/here-is-how-far-we-are-to-achievi...

What specific demonstrations of capability by AI would convince you that your proposed timeline for reaching AGI isn't correct, and that it will happen significantly sooner? If it helps to think about it, there's a good DeepMind paper on a relatively concrete scaling system on the path to AGI: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02462

What you're looking for is embodiment, and actually this was explicitly left aside in a recent paper that attempts to give measurement criteria for AGI[0]. But I agree with you that the entire lived sensation is critical to approaching any objective involving alignment. [0] https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02462

Their multimodal models are a rudimentary form of AGI. EDIT: There can be levels of AGI. Google DeepMind have proposed a framework that would classify ChatGPT as "Emerging AGI". https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02462

This seems to be so broad a definition as to no longer mean anything useful. People in general are interested in capabilities or economic impact, and GPT-2 cleared no notable thresholds in those regards. I prefer the exact opposite approach: let’s use a strict definition, and have levels to make it really explicit what we are talking about. Here is a good one: “Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI” https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02462

I think the DeepMind taxonomy is good; recognize that AGI is too broad a term, so add levels to make it specific. https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02462 “Competent AGI” (or a little earlier) would be my guess for where OpenAI would not hand it over to MS. Honestly if they displaced 10% of workers I think they might call that the threshold.

Paper from two weeks ago by Google DeepMind putting together a very good definition that I haven't seen anyone in the field disagree with yet: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02462