[chaos_emergent]

Yeah I think this is more coherent than people realize. Economically relevant knowledge work is things that humans find cognitively demanding. Otherwise they wouldn't be valued in the first place.

It ties the definition to economic value, which I think is the best definition that we can conjure given that AGI is otherwise highly subjective. Economically relevant work is dictated by markets, which I think is the best proxy we have for something so ambiguous.

[3form]

It's maybe somewhat nice conceptually, and certainly an useful added value - but the elsewhere mentioned $100 billion profit is not the right metric.

And then I think coming up with the right metric is just as subjective on this field as the technological one.

[aleph_minus_one]

> Economically relevant knowledge work is things that humans find cognitively demanding. Otherwise they wouldn't be valued in the first place.

Deep scientific discoveries are also cognitively demanding, but are not really valued (see the precarious work environment in academia).

Another point: a lot of work is rather valued in the first place because the work centers around being submissive/docile with regard to bullshit (see the phenomenon of bullshit jobs). You really know better, but you have to keep your mouth shut.

[Barbing]

Was there a better way than setting an arbitrary $100b threshold?

e.g. average cost to complete a set of representative tasks

[3form]

Yeah, I'm sure there could be a better metric, if the metric's purpose was to check on the progress until the AGI target rather than doing business based on it (and so, hammering the metric to fit the shape of "realistic goal")