> Superintelligence is within reach.
Don't we need to achieve general artificial intelligence first? Or is this "super" intelligence just that? To me, super intelligence would be beyond our own and therefore beyond general AI as well.
Don't we need to achieve general artificial intelligence first? Or is this "super" intelligence just that? To me, super intelligence would be beyond our own and therefore beyond general AI as well.
So if Superintelligence depends on AGI, then we can't say:
> Superintelligence is within reach.
until we can say AGI is within reach. Is there any substantive evidence supporting the revised claim? Do we even have a reliable way to evaluate if an AI is a AGI? The standard answer was the Turing Test, but in recent years there have been multiple claims that it has been broken by non-AGI [1].
To me, AGI still feels a long ways off.
[1]:
- https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02361-7
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/06/17/google-...
Not sure, is superintelligence generic, alive. Does it have motivation, goals? Sounds like a big calculator which he personally will control. Technically it's possible. LLMs aren't the end of AI evolution.
> To me, AGI still feels a long ways off.
It depends on how you define it. Just a couple of years back current LLMs' level was like from sci-fi. But here we are and progress is accelerating. I wonder how many labs and individuals are working on AGI trying to avoid any attention. It feels like any time now. May be something subhuman first.