Skip to main content

Is an AGI even required to achieve similar results?


A Comprehensive Artificial Intelligence Services technical report model by Drexler, from 2019, seems useful to revisit at this time. Instead of focusing on the hypothetical scenario of a single superintelligent agent that surpasses human intelligence, we should, the report argues, consider the more realistic possibility of a diverse and interconnected network of AI systems that provide various services for different tasks and domains. They call this approach Comprehensive AI Services (CAIS).

The main advantages of CAIS are that it avoids some of the conceptual and technical difficulties of defining and measuring intelligence, and that it allows for a more fine-grained and flexible analysis of the potential benefits and risks of AI. 

It's also a good way of considering where we have arrived at, with AgentGPT's operating via Hugging Face or via AutoGPT for example. By connecting a range of Narrow AI tools to perform the tasks that they are optimised for, and having a 'manager' assign the allocation of these tasks, giving the correct prompts for each agent, this 'comprehensive' approach could provide similar results to an AGI? 

The authors of the technical report suggested that CAIS can help us better align AI systems with human values and goals, by enabling more human oversight and collaboration, and by fostering a culture of responsibility and accountability among AI developers and users. Which seems far more plausible than trying to do that with a monolithic AGI.

The authors conclude by outlining some of the open questions and challenges that CAIS poses for AI research and governance, such as how to ensure the reliability, security, and interoperability of AI services, how to balance the trade-offs between centralization and decentralization of AI systems, and how to promote ethical and social norms for AI use and development. These are questions that exist for all AI systems. 



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The AI Dilemma and "Gollem-Class" AIs

From the Center for Humane Technology Tristan Harris and Aza Raskin discuss how existing A.I. capabilities already pose catastrophic risks to a functional society, how A.I. companies are caught in a race to deploy as quickly as possible without adequate safety measures, and what it would mean to upgrade our institutions to a post-A.I. world. This presentation is from a private gathering in San Francisco on March 9th with leading technologists and decision-makers with the ability to influence the future of large-language model A.I.s. This presentation was given before the launch of GPT-4. One of the more astute critics of the tech industry, Tristan Harris, who has recently given stark evidence to Congress. It is worth watching both of these videos, as the Congress address gives a context of PR industry and it's regular abuses. "If we understand the mechanisms and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their...

Enhancing LLM Performance: Buffer of Thought and Mixture of Agents

  As Large Language Models (LLMs) continue to advance, researchers are exploring innovative techniques to further enhance their accuracy and usefulness. Two promising approaches in this domain are Buffer of Thought and Mixture of Agents. Buffer of Thoughts The Buffer of Thoughts  technique aims to improve the reasoning capabilities of LLMs by introducing an intermediate step in the generation process. Instead of directly producing the final output, the model first generates a "buffer" or a series of intermediate thoughts, which serve as a scratchpad for the model to reason and plan its response. This buffer allows the model to break down complex tasks into smaller steps, perform multi-step reasoning, and maintain a coherent line of thought throughout the generation process. By externalizing its thought process, the model can better organise its knowledge and arrive at more logical and consistent outputs. The BoT approach has shown promising results in tasks that require multi...

Claude 3.5 Sonnet, literary analysis capabilities, an experiment

 There are those in the AI observer community that have been suggesting of late that 'AI has plateaued' which reveals, to me, a lack of understanding of how models develop. It's not iterative design but step changes we are witnessing. The differences between Claude 3 Sonnet and 3.5 Sonnet are stark.  One test I often carry out to asses the current capabilities of LLMs is to request a simple prompt to analyse an unpublished poem, commentating on the style and literary devices employed. The outputs have improved significantly over the 18 months I have employed this approach. This is my recent attempt. The poem is self written, self published (so not widely available) to ensure that it's unlikely to have found its way into the training data. For added context, implied in the text, this was written during a residency at a Museum and Art Gallery and came from a conversation with a member of staff about his late father. Calm is museum archival software. PROMPT. "analyse...