The headline was confusing and reading the article doesn’t really clear things up. I don’t think Gill is imagining the same sort of “pretend person” that I would want out of AGI. What I want is a personal assistant that knows me extremely well, is able to tirelessly work on my behalf, and has a personality tailored to my needs and interests. It should be general enough to understand me on a personal level and do a good job anticipating what I want.
That would not at all be a waste of energy to me.
Depends on how much energy it takes. If it takes more resources than it frees, then I’d say it is not worth it.
I am quite sure it’ll cost less than it would to hire a human for the job.
I’m talking about the energy and resources to actually create and provide this service.
Like Farnsworth Bentley?
knows me extremely well, is able to tirelessly work on my behalf, and has a personality tailored to my needs and interests.
Those may still be ANI applications.
Today’s LLM’s marketed as the future of AGI are more focused on knowing a little bit about everything. Including a little bit about how MRIs work and a summary of memes floating around a parody subreddit. I fail to see how LLM’s as they are trained today will know you extremely well and give you a personality tailored to your needs. I also think commercial interests of big tech are pitted against your desire for “tirelessly work[ing] on my behalf”.
I know quite a lot of people doing research into AI. Some from my own background in applied mathematics, and some from my partners partner’s background in computational linguistics. They all have very different ideas about the future of AI, but they all laugh about the idea of a generic AGI.
What should we make pretend people with?
Play-Doh
Edit: And candy!
