For me, I'm not worried about artificial beings being smarter than us being able to reason about things better.
I am far far far more worried what a corporation would do. Look at the TikTok algorithm and how good it is at hijacking our thought process. Do I need to fear it in and of itself? No. I fear the company using it to drive behaviors a certain way because it is profitable.
I think Westworld had a great version of this. They create a super intelligent computer, and they could have just as easily asked it to solve climate change as to manipulate stocks. And ultimately the machine wasn't after anything, just working on a directive. And when asked to shut down, it did. (season 3)
Thats the point here, its all about who gets to direct it, and if it is Elon Musk, I fear for our future.
I can see a situation where multiple AI systems will be connected to simulate human intelligence so you can ask it any question and it will have an answer. It will also be able to outline a whole project into a plan that people can follow. In that sense, it will be smarter. That's a 100% chance. It's a way to easily access the world's knowledge. Search engines are on their way out. Google search will eventually be a relic.
But will it be AGI? No. That's a close to 0% chance, not 0 but close in the next 20 years.
Could it be possible that nothing it truly conscious? Maybe we're all cogs in the wheel of a giant chemical reaction? In the future, someone may build a robot with a ChatGPT brain, and maybe that will be what passes for as AGI. I haven't found any human endeavor that adequately explains consciousness. Consciousness and intelligence are probably two different things. AI is not conscious, and its intelligence varies, sometimes being very stupid, and sometimes being very smart. It's a system inside of another system.
The written portion or the driving portion? I'm actually surprised that you can't stuff whichever state's manual into the AI's context and have it out-perform the median human. Do you have a citation for that?
If you mean the driving portion, that falls somewhat outside the scope of an intelligence test since it relies on actually moving heavy machines in the real world.
That's YOUR definition of intelligence anyway. LLMs fundamentally aren't intelligent because they cannot solve novel problems. It's literally just a complex auto complete that interpolates data from problems already solved by humans. It has no capacity to actually reason about anything.
On a related note, I keep hearing that LLMs will never do X. As a teacher, I doubt that very many if any of my students can do X. LLMs may not be the perfect/God-like problem solver, but they are much smarter than anyone I work with at the community college.
you’re at community college, what do you expect? geniuses? in my basic math undergrad i encountered the limits of GPT daily, with a complete inability to solve anything above maybe freshman or sophomore level proofs. forget anything complex that hasn’t been answered extensively on stack overflow already.
This is a good point because “solving problems” and “generating convincing-sounding text” are the same thing. The fact that language models can answer heretofore unsolvable questions like “how many flimbops does it take to fill a fuzzlebugle to the halfway point?” means that Sam Altman has stolen fire from the gods as a modern day Prometheus