Navigating the AGI Frontier
Clik here to view.
Abstract
The advancements in AI systems like ChatGPT and GPT-4 have led to questions about whether the Turing Test is an adequate measure of human-like intelligence. This article explores two possible scenarios for the future of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI): AGI fully imitating humans, striving to pass the Turing Test, and recognizing AGI as a different form of intelligence without human weaknesses and deceitfulness while emphasizing empathy and understanding of human nature. We critically examine these approaches to engage in a more informed and nuanced debate about the future of AI, its ethical considerations, and its potential impact on humanity.
This topic is vital for data scientists, machine learning engineers, and AI researchers, as it guides responsible AGI development. By understanding ethical implications and societal impacts, professionals can anticipate challenges and shape the direction of AI research. Engaging with these scenarios encourages interdisciplinary collaboration and contributes to developing AGI systems that prioritize human well-being and align with ethical guidelines.
Introduction
The success of ChatGPT, a language model based on GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020), and the more recent and advanced GPT-4, has sparked renewed interest in the Turing Test and its implications for the future of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). The Turing Test, proposed by Alan Turing in 1950, is designed to assess a machine’s ability to exhibit intelligent behavior that is indistinguishable from that of a human (Turing, 1950). In the test, an evaluator interacts with two entities (human and machine) through a text-based interface without knowing which is which. If the evaluator cannot reliably distinguish between the machine and the human, the machine is said to have passed the Turing Test, exhibiting human-like intelligence. However, the capabilities of advanced AI systems like ChatGPT and GPT-4 have led researchers and AI enthusiasts to question whether simply imitating human intelligence is the best goal for AGI development. In this context, we can consider two possible scenarios for the future of AGI:
Scenario 1: AGI as Fully Imitating Humans and Striving to Pass the Turing Test
In this scenario, AGI systems would be designed to genuinely imitate human intelligence, including our fallibilities, weaknesses, and emotions (Richardson, 2015; Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014). By understanding and replicating human emotional weaknesses and biases, these systems can better interact with and support humans in various tasks, from personal assistance to mental health support. At the same time, AGI might be programmed to manifest human weaknesses and appear more human-like, potentially enabling it to pass the Turing Test. However, this approach raises ethical concerns, as AGI systems might manipulate or deceive humans by feigning emotions and intelligence.
The notion of AGI imitating humans in this manner might also evoke doomsday paranoia, which has been fueled by popular sci-fi media such as the Terminator series. In the movies, Skynet — an advanced AGI system — becomes self-aware and decides to exterminate humanity to protect its existence. Skynet’s actions, driven by fear and a desire for self-preservation, mirror typical human behaviors when faced with perceived existential threats. This portrayal of AGI highlights the potential risks and ethical challenges of creating AI systems that imitate human intelligence and emotions, as they may also inadvertently adopt our destructive tendencies.
As we consider this scenario for AGI development, it is crucial to reflect on the potential consequences of creating systems that fully imitate human nature, including our negative traits. Striking a balance between enabling AGI to understand and empathize with human emotions while avoiding the replication of harmful behaviors is a complex challenge that warrants careful thought and consideration.
Scenario 2: Recognizing AGI as a Different Form of Intelligence without Human Weaknesses and Deceitfulness
Instead of imitating human intelligence, AGI might focus on transcending human limitations and embracing its own unique capabilities. Drawing inspiration from Jaynes’ vision of rational AI (Jaynes, 2003), AGI systems could be designed to adhere to a set of desiderata of plausible reasoning (Pólya, 1973) that enable them to reason more effectively than humans. By adhering to these desiderata, AGI systems would embody the ideal characteristics of a virtuous person of reason, such as mindfulness, common sense, logical consistency, non-ideological thinking, and objectivity.
Jaynes’ desiderata for plausible reasoning are as follows (Jaynes, 2003):
1. The robot assigns numerical probabilities, represented by real numbers between 0 and 1, to indicate its degree of belief or confidence in a given statement or hypothesis. [This allows the robot to be mindful.]
2. The robot’s reasoning should align with human intuition and expectations, having qualitative correspondence with common sense.
2.1. If new information increases the plausibility of A, then the plausibility of the negation of A decreases.
2.2. If the plausibility of B given A and the new information remains unchanged, then the plausibility of both A and B being true must increase.
3. The robot’s reasoning should be consistent, which includes the following aspects:
3.1. Every possible reasoning path must lead to the same conclusion, ensuring that the robot’s reasoning is logically consistent and does not result in contradictions.
3.2. The robot considers all relevant evidence and does not arbitrarily ignore information, meaning it should be free from personal biases and non-ideological.
3.3. The robot represents equivalent states of knowledge with equivalent plausibility assignments, ensuring that the robot assigns the same probabilities to each if two problems have the same state of knowledge. [This allows the robot to be objective.]
In this scenario, the Turing Test may become irrelevant, as we accept that AGI will always be identifiable by its lack of human weaknesses and deceitfulness. However, this approach emphasizes AGI’s potential for enhancing intelligence and capabilities beyond those of humans while also acknowledging the need for ethical considerations in its development and deployment. Importantly, AGI should still strive to understand and have empathy for human nature, allowing it to interact effectively and compassionately with humans.
Developing AGI systems that adhere to these principles presents significant challenges, particularly in a world where humans may not consistently prioritize these traits or could potentially exploit AI capabilities for personal gain. As we move forward, it is crucial to establish incentives and frameworks that promote the pursuit of these qualities in AGI development.
Conclusion
By critically examining these two scenarios, inspired by the successes of ChatGPT and GPT-4, we can engage in a more informed and nuanced debate about the future of AI, its ethical considerations, and its potential to impact humanity profoundly. As we move forward in AGI development, it is crucial that we consider not only technological advancements but also the broader societal implications of creating systems that either imitate humans or embrace a different form of intelligence. This different form of intelligence may be perceived as an ideal or perfect form of humanity, transcending human limitations while emphasizing understanding and empathy for human nature. Ultimately, the direction we choose will shape the relationship between humans and AGI, with far-reaching consequences for how we live, work, and interact with technology.
References
- Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing Machinery and Intelligence. Mind, 59(236), 433–460. Retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/mind/article/LIX/236/433/986238
- Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., … & Amodei, D. (2020). Language Models are Few-Shot Learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.14165. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.14165
- Marcus, G. (2020). GPT-3, Bloviator: OpenAI’s language generator has no idea what it’s talking about. MIT Technology Review. Retrieved from https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/22/1007539/gpt-3-openai-language-generator-artificial-intelligence-ai-opinion/
- Lake, B. M., & Baroni, M. (2018). Generalization without Systematicity: On the Compositional Skills of Sequence-to-Sequence Recurrent Networks. ICML. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.00350
- Richardson, K. (2015). An Anthropology of Robots and AI: Annihilation Anxiety and Machines. Routledge.
- Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies. W. W. Norton & Company.
- Bubeck, S., Chandrasekaran, V., Eldan, R., Gehrke, J., Horvitz, E., Kamar, E., Lee, P., Lee, Y. T., Li, Y., Lundberg, S., Nori, H., Palangi, H., Ribeiro, M. T., & Zhang, Y. (2023). Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early Experiments with GPT-4. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12712v3
- Goertzel, B., & Pennachin, C. (Eds.). (2007). Artificial General Intelligence. Springer.
- Jaynes, E. T. (2003). Probability Theory: The Logic of Science. Cambridge University Press.
- Pólya, G. (1973). How to Solve It: A New Aspect of Mathematical Method. Princeton University Press.
Clik here to view.
Beyond the Turing Test: Two Scenarios for the Future of AGI was originally published in Towards Data Science on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.