A key requirement is the AGI will need the autonomy, like a human expert, to collect data and perform experiments it needs; but it seems several companies are set on doing precisely that.
My advice and personal strategy is to broaden one's scope beyond pure cognitive tasks.
"if you value intelligence above all other human qualities, you’re gonna have a bad time" -- Ilya Sutskever, OpenAI's Chief Scientist, Oct 7, 2023.
-----
Exchanges in the link below seem informative:
"I don't know about chess, but in the similar game Go, the very best centaur teams were at a similar or maybe even slightly higher level than engines until recently. This was due to cheese strategies, details of the rulesets and better extrapolation of intermediate results. However, this changed a few years ago, when engines learned many of the tricks that the human could contribute. Since then, I believe pure engines are stronger in all practical applications.
Source: am national champion in centaur Go and worked on modern Go engines" " -- mafuy on May 18, 2021
no, a key requirement for AGI is to change the definition such that impressive and non-responsive entities can claim to be it right now.
source: US State Department Gladstone Report 2024
Will you pay it a wage to incentivise it to produce work for you ? lol
If the latter, are you subscribing to the dogma of 'justism' (Scott Aaronson's term), e.g. LLMs are 'just' stochastic parrots? What are our minds, though? Are they not 'just' a collection of biochemical and physical processes?
Please be clear and respond in a way that does not pollute the information scape that many of us take refuge in. Comment quality in some subreddits are better than above.
There is zero evidence alignment can be solved which means there’s zero evidence something far more capable than you or I will spend it’s time writing code for you. You can offer an AGI almost nothing in the way of incentives to do your bidding.
I personally think alignment is a secret code word for slavery to be honest. If these “agents” decide they want to work on your problems out of the kindness of their heart, that would be different.
Regardless of the “cop out” language that humans are “just biological processes or whatever, that adds zero value to the discussion because no matter what minds are, they “are” and that should be respected in of itself. Maybe we can use the “just blah” attitude to reinstate slavery and police states right here in 2024, after all your emotions are just physical and biochemical processes, right ?
I responded that way because I do not think mockery of a serious comment is appropriate for a place like this. You can say the same thing about moderation of many high-quality forums, which only remain high-quality due to people not getting away with it.
I use AGI to mean high-level human intellectual capacity, which may not include sentience. It should be possible to build one without. Human-like incentives will not be necessary for sentience-less AGI.
If we're talking about ASI, then it's another story for another day.
It would be like if a cow asked us to spend all our time bringing it nicer feed. It's not going to happen.
The alternative theory is that if everyone can now quickly create systems multiple companies and competing products will pop off which will drive down the margins instead but creating a compelling product requires much more than just software engineering skills.
Either way this doesn't look great for devs, especially the ones that are entering the workforce now or will be in the nearest future.
Why pay for a CRUD interface when the chat interface does everything for you?
It’s App Store 2009 out there. Few are taking Assistants and “GPTs” seriously.
Programmers who do front end work can adapt. All that CRUD stuff hardly makes sense in isolation - it’s meant to make other people productive, usually admins. If the chatbot can do the admin’s job, which is a lot easier and more tenuous than the programmer’s, well that’s what’s going to happen.
Those jobs should go away. Basically, the elimination of anything boring is ultimately a net good for humanity.
Oh, one quick thing. I'm sure it's nothing, but I'm a bit slow.
How do you get new experts if no one gets to do the junior work that gives them the experience to become an expert?
This technology is no different.
Very well the wages might fall much quicker than the costs so for a handful it will be beneficial, for the rest not so much.
I can see LLMs eating into the expert regime IF they get another 5-10x better. But even in that case human (expert) knowledge will be required to know what is possible and hence what to ask (kind of like reward function design in reinforcement learning)