Unsocial Intelligence: an Investigation of the Assumptions of AGI Discourse
2401.13142
0
0
🤔
Abstract
Dreams of machines rivaling human intelligence have shaped the field of AI since its inception. Yet, the very meaning of human-level AI or artificial general intelligence (AGI) remains elusive and contested. Definitions of AGI embrace a diverse range of incompatible values and assumptions. Contending with the fractured worldviews of AGI discourse is vital for critiques that pursue different values and futures. To that end, we provide a taxonomy of AGI definitions, laying the ground for examining the key social, political, and ethical assumptions they make. We highlight instances in which these definitions frame AGI or human-level AI as a technical topic and expose the value-laden choices being implicitly made. Drawing on feminist, STS, and social science scholarship on the political and social character of intelligence in both humans and machines, we propose contextual, democratic, and participatory paths to imagining future forms of machine intelligence. The development of future forms of AI must involve explicit attention to the values it encodes, the people it includes or excludes, and a commitment to epistemic justice.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper presents a pluralistic, democratic, and participatory investigation of the discourse surrounding Artificial General Intelligence (AGI).
- The authors argue that the development of AGI has significant value-laden implications that require broad societal engagement and deliberation.
- The paper explores the dual pedigrees of AGI, its connection to human intelligence and technological advancement, and the need for a more inclusive and democratic approach to its development.
Plain English Explanation
The paper discusses the importance of having a diverse and inclusive dialogue around the development of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). AGI refers to the idea of creating an artificial system that can match or exceed human intelligence across a wide range of tasks. The authors argue that the development of AGI is not a purely technical endeavor, but one that is deeply intertwined with societal values and ethical considerations.
The paper delves into the "dual pedigrees" of AGI, meaning that it has roots both in the study of human intelligence and in the advancement of technology. On the one hand, AGI is viewed as a way to better understand and replicate the workings of the human mind. On the other hand, it is seen as a technological breakthrough that could revolutionize various industries and aspects of our lives. The paper notes that intelligence is inherently value-laden, as it is shaped by cultural, historical, and political factors.
The authors argue that the development of AGI should not be left solely in the hands of a small group of experts or tech companies. Instead, they advocate for a more pluralistic, democratic, and participatory approach, where a wide range of stakeholders, including the general public, can engage in the discourse and shape the trajectory of AGI development. This is important because the decisions made about AGI can have far-reaching implications for society, and a diverse set of perspectives is needed to ensure that these decisions are made in the public interest.
The paper emphasizes the need to move beyond the narrow technical focus that often dominates discussions around AGI and to instead engage with the broader social, ethical, and political implications of this technology. This includes considering how AGI might impact employment, privacy, and the distribution of power, as well as how it can be developed and deployed in a way that promotes the public good.
Overall, the paper calls for a more inclusive and democratic approach to the development of AGI, one that recognizes the inherent value-laden nature of intelligence and the need for broad societal engagement in shaping the future of this technology. This is seen as crucial to ensuring that AGI is developed and deployed in a way that benefits humanity as a whole, rather than serving the interests of a small group of powerful actors.
Technical Explanation
The paper presents a critical analysis of the discourse surrounding Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), arguing that it is deeply value-laden and requires a pluralistic, democratic, and participatory approach to its development.
The authors begin by exploring the "dual pedigrees" of AGI, which refers to its roots in both the study of human intelligence and the advancement of technology. They highlight how intelligence is inherently value-laden, shaped by cultural, historical, and political factors, and how this has important implications for the development of AGI.
The paper then delves into the need for a more inclusive and democratic approach to AGI discourse. The authors argue that the development of AGI should not be left solely in the hands of a small group of experts or tech companies, but should instead involve a wide range of stakeholders, including the general public. This is crucial because the decisions made about AGI can have far-reaching implications for society, and a diverse set of perspectives is needed to ensure that these decisions are made in the public interest.
The paper also emphasizes the importance of moving beyond a narrow technical focus and engaging with the broader social, ethical, and political implications of AGI. This includes considering how AGI might impact employment, privacy, and the distribution of power, as well as how it can be developed and deployed in a way that promotes the public good.
Overall, the paper presents a compelling argument for a more pluralistic, democratic, and participatory approach to the discourse surrounding AGI. The authors contend that this is crucial to ensuring that the development and deployment of AGI benefits humanity as a whole, rather than serving the interests of a small group of powerful actors.
Critical Analysis
The paper raises important questions about the value-laden nature of intelligence and the need for a more inclusive and democratic approach to the development of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). The authors' call for broader societal engagement in the AGI discourse is well-founded, as the decisions made about this technology can have far-reaching implications for the public.
One potential limitation of the paper is that it does not delve deeply into the specific ways in which the development of AGI could impact different sectors of society, such as employment, privacy, or the distribution of power. While the paper acknowledges the importance of considering these broader implications, a more detailed analysis of the potential societal impacts of AGI could have strengthened the authors' arguments.
Additionally, the paper does not provide a clear roadmap for how a more pluralistic, democratic, and participatory approach to AGI discourse could be implemented in practice. Exploring the specific mechanisms and processes that could facilitate broader engagement and deliberation on the development of AGI would have been a valuable addition to the paper.
Overall, the paper makes a compelling case for the need to reframe the discourse surrounding AGI, shifting it away from a narrow technical focus and towards a more inclusive and democratic approach that recognizes the inherent value-laden nature of intelligence. The authors' call for greater public engagement and deliberation on the development of AGI is an important contribution to the ongoing debate around the future of this transformative technology.
Conclusion
This paper presents a critical analysis of the discourse surrounding Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), arguing for a pluralistic, democratic, and participatory approach to its development. The authors highlight the "dual pedigrees" of AGI, rooted in both the study of human intelligence and the advancement of technology, and emphasize the inherently value-laden nature of intelligence.
The paper emphasizes the need to move beyond a narrow technical focus and engage with the broader social, ethical, and political implications of AGI. This includes considering how AGI might impact employment, privacy, and the distribution of power, as well as how it can be developed and deployed in a way that promotes the public good.
The authors call for a more inclusive approach to the AGI discourse, one that involves a wide range of stakeholders, including the general public. They contend that this is crucial to ensuring that the development and deployment of AGI benefits humanity as a whole, rather than serving the interests of a small group of powerful actors.
Overall, this paper presents a compelling argument for a fundamental shift in the way we approach the development of Artificial General Intelligence, emphasizing the need for a more pluralistic, democratic, and participatory process that recognizes the inherent value-laden nature of this transformative technology.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
How Far Are We From AGI
Tao Feng, Chuanyang Jin, Jingyu Liu, Kunlun Zhu, Haoqin Tu, Zirui Cheng, Guanyu Lin, Jiaxuan You
0
0
The evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) has profoundly impacted human society, driving significant advancements in multiple sectors. Yet, the escalating demands on AI have highlighted the limitations of AI's current offerings, catalyzing a movement towards Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). AGI, distinguished by its ability to execute diverse real-world tasks with efficiency and effectiveness comparable to human intelligence, reflects a paramount milestone in AI evolution. While existing works have summarized specific recent advancements of AI, they lack a comprehensive discussion of AGI's definitions, goals, and developmental trajectories. Different from existing survey papers, this paper delves into the pivotal questions of our proximity to AGI and the strategies necessary for its realization through extensive surveys, discussions, and original perspectives. We start by articulating the requisite capability frameworks for AGI, integrating the internal, interface, and system dimensions. As the realization of AGI requires more advanced capabilities and adherence to stringent constraints, we further discuss necessary AGI alignment technologies to harmonize these factors. Notably, we emphasize the importance of approaching AGI responsibly by first defining the key levels of AGI progression, followed by the evaluation framework that situates the status-quo, and finally giving our roadmap of how to reach the pinnacle of AGI. Moreover, to give tangible insights into the ubiquitous impact of the integration of AI, we outline existing challenges and potential pathways toward AGI in multiple domains. In sum, serving as a pioneering exploration into the current state and future trajectory of AGI, this paper aims to foster a collective comprehension and catalyze broader public discussions among researchers and practitioners on AGI.
5/17/2024
🚀
Position: Stop Making Unscientific AGI Performance Claims
Patrick Altmeyer, Andrew M. Demetriou, Antony Bartlett, Cynthia C. S. Liem
0
0
Developments in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI), and particularly large language models (LLMs), have created a 'perfect storm' for observing 'sparks' of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) that are spurious. Like simpler models, LLMs distill meaningful representations in their latent embeddings that have been shown to correlate with external variables. Nonetheless, the correlation of such representations has often been linked to human-like intelligence in the latter but not the former. We probe models of varying complexity including random projections, matrix decompositions, deep autoencoders and transformers: all of them successfully distill information that can be used to predict latent or external variables and yet none of them have previously been linked to AGI. We argue and empirically demonstrate that the finding of meaningful patterns in latent spaces of models cannot be seen as evidence in favor of AGI. Additionally, we review literature from the social sciences that shows that humans are prone to seek such patterns and anthropomorphize. We conclude that both the methodological setup and common public image of AI are ideal for the misinterpretation that correlations between model representations and some variables of interest are 'caused' by the model's understanding of underlying 'ground truth' relationships. We, therefore, call for the academic community to exercise extra caution, and to be keenly aware of principles of academic integrity, in interpreting and communicating about AI research outcomes.
6/3/2024
🎯
Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI
Meredith Ringel Morris, Jascha Sohl-dickstein, Noah Fiedel, Tris Warkentin, Allan Dafoe, Aleksandra Faust, Clement Farabet, Shane Legg
0
0
We propose a framework for classifying the capabilities and behavior of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) models and their precursors. This framework introduces levels of AGI performance, generality, and autonomy, providing a common language to compare models, assess risks, and measure progress along the path to AGI. To develop our framework, we analyze existing definitions of AGI, and distill six principles that a useful ontology for AGI should satisfy. With these principles in mind, we propose Levels of AGI based on depth (performance) and breadth (generality) of capabilities, and reflect on how current systems fit into this ontology. We discuss the challenging requirements for future benchmarks that quantify the behavior and capabilities of AGI models against these levels. Finally, we discuss how these levels of AGI interact with deployment considerations such as autonomy and risk, and emphasize the importance of carefully selecting Human-AI Interaction paradigms for responsible and safe deployment of highly capable AI systems.
6/7/2024
🔎
A social path to human-like artificial intelligence
Edgar A. Du'e~nez-Guzm'an, Suzanne Sadedin, Jane X. Wang, Kevin R. McKee, Joel Z. Leibo
0
0
Traditionally, cognitive and computer scientists have viewed intelligence solipsistically, as a property of unitary agents devoid of social context. Given the success of contemporary learning algorithms, we argue that the bottleneck in artificial intelligence (AI) progress is shifting from data assimilation to novel data generation. We bring together evidence showing that natural intelligence emerges at multiple scales in networks of interacting agents via collective living, social relationships and major evolutionary transitions, which contribute to novel data generation through mechanisms such as population pressures, arms races, Machiavellian selection, social learning and cumulative culture. Many breakthroughs in AI exploit some of these processes, from multi-agent structures enabling algorithms to master complex games like Capture-The-Flag and StarCraft II, to strategic communication in Diplomacy and the shaping of AI data streams by other AIs. Moving beyond a solipsistic view of agency to integrate these mechanisms suggests a path to human-like compounding innovation through ongoing novel data generation.
5/28/2024