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 Whispers in the Machine: Why Prompt Injection Remains a Persistent Threat to LLMs

 Large Language Models (LLMs) are rapidly transforming how we interact with technology, offering incredible potential for tasks ranging from content creation to complex analysis. However, as these powerful tools become more integrated into our lives, so too do the novel security challenges they present. Among these, prompt injection attacks stand out as a particularly persistent and evolving threat. These attacks, as one recent paper (Safety at Scale: A Comprehensive Survey of Large Model Safety https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.05206) highlights, involve subtly manipulating LLMs to deviate from their intended purpose, and the methods are becoming increasingly sophisticated. At its core, a prompt injection attack involves embedding a malicious instruction within an otherwise normal request, tricking the LLM into producing unintended – and potentially harmful – outputs. Think of it as slipping a secret, contradictory instruction into a seemingly harmless conversation. What makes prompt inj...

The Future of Work in the Age of AGI: Opportunities, Challenges, and Resistance

 In recent years, the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) has sparked intense debate about the future of work. As we edge closer to the development of artificial general intelligence (AGI), these discussions have taken on a new urgency. This post explores various perspectives on employment in a post-AGI world, including the views of those who may resist such changes. It follows on from others I've written on the impacts of these technologies. The Potential for Widespread Job Displacement Avital Balwit, an employee at Anthropic, argues in her article " My Last Five Years of Work " that AGI is likely to cause significant job displacement across various sectors, including knowledge-based professions. This aligns with research by Korinek (2024), which suggests that the transition to AGI could trigger a race between automation and capital accumulation, potentially leading to a collapse in wages for many workers. Emerging Opportunities and Challenges Despite the ...

Can We Build a Safe Superintelligence? Safe Superintelligence Inc. Raises Intriguing Questions

  Safe Superintelligence Inc . (SSI) has burst onto the scene with a bold mission: to create the world's first safe superintelligence (SSI). Their (Ilya Sutskever, Daniel Gross, Daniel Levy) ambition is undeniable, but before we all sign up to join their "cracked team," let's delve deeper into the potential issues with their approach. One of the most critical questions is defining "safe" superintelligence. What values would guide this powerful AI? How can we ensure it aligns with the complex and often contradictory desires of humanity?  After all, "safe" for one person might mean environmental protection, while another might prioritise economic growth, even if it harms the environment.  Finding universal values that a superintelligence could adhere to is a significant hurdle that SSI hasn't fully addressed. Another potential pitfall lies in SSI's desire to rapidly advance capabilities while prioritising safety.  Imagine a Formula One car wi...