| Humans will likely be able to contribute until full AGI, that is. I believe that for pure cognitive tasks, it's plausible the history of centaur chess/Go might be repeated on a much grander scale. 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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27189283 |
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