We already have these.

They're called humans.

We had built computers also to overcome the human limitations of fuzziness and imperfection.

Now apparently we think putting these limitations back into computers is a good thing.

Humans cost money and don't do what you want.

The goal of all of this is to get humans out of every single process except at the very highest level [1].

You don't farm and hunt your food. You don't make and hand wash your clothes. Why the heck would a business want a person to turn their requirements into repeatable execution units? That person won't be required for much longer.

This entire career only exists as a stepping stone. It fills a business need that can't currently be done better and cheaper. What we see today is not how things will always be.

[1] (At some point that too might disappear.)

But thats... terrible. Think of all the people who are entirely incapable of doing "high level" tasks, and are very content and well suited to "process" jobs. I think it's a mistake to see the devaluing of humanity as a goal.

I'm only describing one of many lenses through which to view this. There's also the lens that this turns everyone on the planet into a creative genius and that large studios crumble into tiny self proprietorships. That part is overwhelmingly exciting.

The directionality of this is not set my individuals, but by all of us participating in the market economy. It's happening, and all we can do is prepare and find out how we fit into the new paradigm. The Luddites had to, and so shall we.

Arguably by the time you make AI intelligent enough to deal with this it will ask for compensation as well so your argument might become moot.

Maybe it's time we think if that "AI panacea" that many envision -- namely have all the benefits of thinking humans with none of the drawbacks -- is even possible. I get increasingly skeptical with time.

Mind you, I am one of the people who absolutely would create Skynet if he had the time and resources... but I am just not sure it's even possible for us in this day and age.

> You don't farm and hunt your food. You don't make and hand wash your clothes.

Part of the reason i don't do these things is because i cannot make consistent clothing, consistent meals, etc. Which isn't to say that all items/food i buy _is_ consistent, but consistency is a valuable metric behind a ton of things we buy and do.

Consistency also seems to be a thing humans are pretty bad at. At least in the capitalist model where we produce millions of Units of any one thing.

Let's first get to the point where AI can even match human intelligence, ok?

That has been a moving target ever since Deep Blue won against Kasparov in 1997. Is there any reasonable benchmark for that goal? Never mind one that people will still accept after an AI has beaten the benchmark?

My benchmark is the "runaway effect". At some point we'll be able to point AIs at a python environment & tensorflow and it'll improve the algorithms we have for training itself. And at some point, start suggesting improvements (or whole new designs) for AI accelerator hardware. I might be wrong, but ChatGPT makes me think we aren't far off.

I'm curious what this Diff Models paper does with tensorflow's source code. Can it already suggest improvements?

That's not really an answer. On AGIs, Wikipedia says:

> Various criteria for intelligence have been proposed (most famously the Turing test) but to date, there is no definition that satisfies everyone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligenc...