Thesis Statement^[1]

Current arguments for AGI can be distilled to arguments for specific capabilities, not for generality in itself. We need to examine whether there exists a genuine and sound argument for generality as an independent property.

Introduction

In Plato's Republic, Glaucon's challenge to Socrates is to show him why justice is good in and of itself; instead of arguing for its instrumentality. In other words, Socrates has to show Glaucon that we value justice itself, not merely for its after-effects:

"For I want to hear what justice and injustice are, and what power each has when it is just by itself in the soul. I want to leave out of account the rewards and the consequences of each of them." (Plato, Republic, 358b-c)

Following Glaucon's spirit, I dare ask: is generality in AI valuable in itself, or do we follow it merely for its expected instrumental effects?

Dialectic

The problem of reduction

When leading labs say "we're building towards AGI," what do they really mean? If we enumerate all the capabilities they desire (mathematical reasoning, long-horizon tasks, automated R&D and real-world economic tasks, ...) does anything remain in the term AGI after we subtract this list? Or is AGI simply a short name for "all of these capabilities together"?

Most, if not all, pro-generality arguments seem to be reducible to:

"We want adaptability" – which is a specific capability
"We want transfer learning" – again, a specific capability
"We want to solve multiple issues" – this seems to be a set of specific capabilities

It doesn't seem to be wrong, then, to ask whether generality is the name we give to a sufficiently big conjunction of specific capabilities, or whether there is something qualitatively distinct: generality itself.

The subtraction test: If we could have all the specific capabilities that AGI promises, but without 'generality' (whatever that means, maybe we have all the capabilities but in separate, narrow models), would we lose any value?

The missing argument: intrinsic value

No one seems to argue that generality has value in itself (as we could argue about consciousness or wellbeing). Why not? Maybe because AI (seemingly) is instrumental by nature. So, why do we want generality? And, is that really what we want?

The argument of cognitive economy / from cognitive economics

A general system may be more efficient than maintaining a comprehensive set of narr...

Posts

Wikitag Contributions

Comments