Summary Levels of AGI Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI arxiv.org
9,746 words - PDF document - View PDF document
One Line
Google DeepMind presents a framework for categorizing AGI models based on various factors and highlights the importance of benchmarks, risk assessment, and responsible implementation.
Slides
Slide Presentation (12 slides)
Key Points
- Google DeepMind researchers propose a framework for classifying Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) models based on levels of performance, generality, and autonomy.
- The framework aims to provide a common language for comparing models, assessing risks, and measuring progress towards AGI.
- The proposed framework is based on six principles for defining AGI, including focusing on capabilities, evaluating generality and performance separately, and defining stages along the path to AGI.
- The researchers discuss nine case studies of AGI definitions proposed by AI researchers and organizations, examining their strengths and limitations.
- The researchers propose a leveled ontology of AGI that classifies systems based on their depth and breadth of capabilities, ranging from "Emerging AGI" to "Artificial Superintelligence (ASI)."
- The importance of developing an AGI benchmark to operationalize the proposed definition is emphasized, with a focus on cognitive and metacognitive tasks.
- The framework enables a more nuanced discussion of AI risks, including misuse risks, alignment risks, and structural risks associated with each level of AGI.
- The interaction between capabilities and autonomy in AI systems is discussed, highlighting the need for appropriate Human-AI Interaction paradigms for responsible deployment.
Summaries
41 word summary
Google DeepMind proposes a framework to classify AGI models based on performance, generality, and autonomy. They discuss case studies, principles, and propose an ontology. They emphasize the need for an AGI benchmark and understanding risk profiles, as well as responsible deployment.
74 word summary
Google DeepMind proposes a framework for classifying AGI models based on performance, generality, and autonomy. The framework aims to compare models, assess risks, and measure progress towards AGI. They discuss nine case studies of AGI definitions, identify six principles for defining AGI, and propose a leveled ontology of AGI. They emphasize the importance of developing an AGI benchmark and understanding risk profiles. They also highlight the interaction between capabilities and autonomy, emphasizing responsible deployment.
135 word summary
Google DeepMind researchers have proposed a framework for classifying Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) models based on levels of performance, generality, and autonomy. The framework aims to provide a common language for comparing models, assessing risks, and measuring progress towards AGI. AGI is important due to its relation to goals, predictions, and risks of AI. The researchers discussed nine case studies of AGI definitions and identified six principles for defining AGI. They proposed a leveled ontology of AGI that classifies systems based on their capabilities. The researchers emphasized the importance of developing an AGI benchmark to operationalize the proposed definition and highlighted the need to understand risk profiles associated with each level. They also discussed the interaction between capabilities and autonomy in AI systems, emphasizing the importance of selecting appropriate human-AI interaction paradigms for responsible deployment.
482 word summary
Google DeepMind researchers have proposed a framework for classifying Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) models and their precursors based on levels of performance, generality, and autonomy. This framework aims to provide a common language for comparing models, assessing risks, and measuring progress towards AGI.
AGI is important as it relates to goals for, predictions about, and risks of AI. Achieving human-level intelligence is a goal for many in the field, and predictions suggest that AI will outperform humans within a decade. AGI is also associated with risks such as extreme risks and the potential for systems to deceive and manipulate. However, there is no consensus among AI experts on a single definition of AGI.
The researchers discussed nine case studies of AGI definitions proposed by AI researchers and organizations. Based on these case studies, the researchers identified six principles for defining AGI.
The researchers proposed a leveled ontology of AGI that classifies systems based on their depth and breadth of capabilities. The levels range from “Emerging AGI” to “Artificial Superintelligence (ASI).” The performance dimension refers to how an AI system compares to human-level performance for a given task, while the generality dimension refers to the range of tasks for which an AI system reaches a target performance threshold.
The researchers highlighted the importance of developing an AGI benchmark to operationalize the proposed definition. The benchmark should include a broad suite of cognitive and metacognitive tasks, measuring diverse properties such as linguistic intelligence, mathematical reasoning, and creativity. The benchmark should also be a living benchmark, allowing for the addition of new tasks over time.
The proposed framework enables a more nuanced discussion of AI risks. As systems progress along the levels of AGI, new risks are introduced, including misuse risks, alignment risks, and structural risks. The researchers emphasized the importance of understanding the risk profiles associated with each level to guide safety research and policymaking.
The researchers also discussed the interaction between capabilities and autonomy in AI systems. They acknowledged that AI systems do not operate in a vacuum and that contextual attributes such as interfaces, tasks, scenarios, and end-users have a significant impact on risk profiles. They highlighted the importance of selecting appropriate Human-AI Interaction paradigms for responsible and safe deployment of highly capable AI systems.
In conclusion, the proposed framework for classifying AGI models based on levels of performance, generality, and autonomy provides a common language for comparing models, assessing risks, and measuring progress towards AGI. The framework is based on six principles that a useful ontology for AGI should satisfy. The researchers emphasized the need for developing an AGI benchmark to operationalize the definition and discussed the interaction between capabilities and autonomy in AI systems. The authors proposed six Levels of Autonomy to characterize human-AI interaction paradigms, which are correlated with the Levels of AGI. They highlighted the importance of considering human-AI interaction in the development and deployment of AGI systems.
657 word summary
Google DeepMind researchers have proposed a framework for classifying Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) models and their precursors based on levels of performance, generality, and autonomy. This framework aims to provide a common language for comparing models, assessing risks, and measuring progress towards AGI. The researchers analyzed existing definitions of AGI and distilled six principles that a useful ontology for AGI should satisfy. The proposed "Levels of AGI" framework is based on the depth and breadth of capabilities and reflects how current systems fit into this ontology.
AGI is important as it relates to goals for, predictions about, and risks of AI. Achieving human-level intelligence is a goal for many in the field, and predictions suggest that AI will outperform humans within a decade. AGI is also associated with risks such as extreme risks and the potential for systems to deceive and manipulate. However, there is no consensus among AI experts on a single definition of AGI.
The researchers discussed nine case studies of AGI definitions proposed by AI researchers and organizations. These case studies include the Turing Test, strong AI with consciousness, analogies to the human brain, human-level performance on cognitive tasks, ability to learn tasks, economically valuable work, flexibility and generality, artificial capable intelligence, and state-of-the-art language models as generalists. Based on these case studies, the researchers identified six principles for defining AGI.
The researchers proposed a leveled ontology of AGI that classifies systems based on their depth and breadth of capabilities. The levels range from "Emerging AGI" to "Artificial Superintelligence (ASI)." The performance dimension refers to how an AI system compares to human-level performance for a given task, while the generality dimension refers to the range of tasks for which an AI system reaches a target performance threshold.
The researchers highlighted the importance of developing an AGI benchmark to operationalize the proposed definition. The benchmark should include a broad suite of cognitive and metacognitive tasks, measuring diverse properties such as linguistic intelligence, mathematical reasoning, and creativity. The benchmark should also be a living benchmark, allowing for the addition of new tasks over time.
The proposed framework enables a more nuanced discussion of AI risks. As systems progress along the levels of AGI, new risks are introduced, including misuse risks, alignment risks, and structural risks. The researchers emphasized the importance of understanding the risk profiles associated with each level to guide safety research and policymaking.
The researchers also discussed the interaction between capabilities and autonomy in AI systems. They acknowledged that AI systems do not operate in a vacuum and that contextual attributes such as interfaces, tasks, scenarios, and end-users have a significant impact on risk profiles. They highlighted the importance of selecting appropriate Human-AI Interaction paradigms for responsible and safe deployment of highly capable AI systems.
In conclusion, the proposed framework for classifying AGI models based on levels of performance, generality, and autonomy provides a common language for comparing models, assessing risks, and measuring progress towards AGI. The framework is based on six principles that a useful ontology for AGI should satisfy. The researchers emphasized the need for developing an AGI benchmark to operationalize the definition and discussed the interaction between capabilities and autonomy in AI systems.
The paper also discussed the importance of considering human-AI interaction in the development and deployment of AGI systems. The authors proposed six Levels of Autonomy to characterize human-AI interaction paradigms, which are correlated with the Levels of AGI. They emphasized the importance of the "No AI" paradigm and provided examples where lower levels of autonomy may be desirable for specific tasks and contexts.
The Levels of Autonomy are unlocked by AGI capability progression, but the choice of autonomy level should take into account contextual details and potential risks. The authors provided concrete examples for each level of autonomy, ranging from AI as a tool to fully autonomous AI. They highlighted the need for interfaces that support human-AI alignment and suggested that human-AI interaction design decisions should be carefully
934 word summary
Google DeepMind researchers propose a framework for classifying Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) models and their precursors based on levels of performance, generality, and autonomy. The framework aims to provide a common language for comparing models, assessing risks, and measuring progress towards AGI. The researchers analyze existing definitions of AGI and distill six principles that a useful ontology for AGI should satisfy. These principles include focusing on capabilities rather than mechanisms, evaluating generality and performance separately, and defining stages along the path to AGI. The proposed "Levels of AGI" framework is based on the depth and breadth of capabilities and reflects how current systems fit into this ontology.
The concept of AGI is important as it relates to goals for, predictions about, and risks of AI. Achieving human-level intelligence is a goal for many in the field, and predictions suggest that AI will outperform humans within a decade. AGI is also associated with risks such as extreme risks and the potential for systems to deceive and manipulate. However, there is no consensus among AI experts on a single definition of AGI.
The researchers discuss nine case studies of AGI definitions proposed by AI researchers and organizations. These case studies include the Turing Test, strong AI with consciousness, analogies to the human brain, human-level performance on cognitive tasks, ability to learn tasks, economically valuable work, flexibility and generality, artificial capable intelligence, and state-of-the-art language models as generalists. The strengths and limitations of each definition are examined, leading to the identification of six principles for defining AGI.
Based on these principles, the researchers propose a leveled ontology of AGI that classifies systems based on their depth and breadth of capabilities. The levels range from "Emerging AGI" to "Artificial Superintelligence (ASI)." The performance dimension refers to how an AI system compares to human-level performance for a given task, while the generality dimension refers to the range of tasks for which an AI system reaches a target performance threshold. Current frontier language models are considered Level 1 General AI until their performance level increases for a broader set of tasks.
The researchers highlight the importance of developing an AGI benchmark to operationalize the proposed definition. The benchmark should include a broad suite of cognitive and metacognitive tasks, measuring diverse properties such as linguistic intelligence, mathematical reasoning, and creativity. The benchmark should also be a living benchmark, allowing for the addition of new tasks over time. The researchers discuss the challenges and considerations in benchmarking AGI, including the use of tools and the ecological validity of tasks.
The proposed framework also enables a more nuanced discussion of AI risks. As systems progress along the levels of AGI, new risks are introduced, including misuse risks, alignment risks, and structural risks. The researchers emphasize the importance of understanding the risk profiles associated with each level to guide safety research and policymaking.
Finally, the researchers discuss the interaction between capabilities and autonomy in AI systems. They acknowledge that AI systems do not operate in a vacuum and that contextual attributes such as interfaces, tasks, scenarios, and end-users have a significant impact on risk profiles. They highlight the importance of selecting appropriate Human-AI Interaction paradigms for responsible and safe deployment of highly capable AI systems.
In conclusion, the proposed framework for classifying AGI models based on levels of performance, generality, and autonomy provides a common language for comparing models, assessing risks, and measuring progress towards AGI. The framework is based on six principles that a useful ontology for AGI should satisfy. The researchers emphasize the need for developing an AGI benchmark to operationalize the definition and discuss the interaction between capabilities and autonomy in AI systems.
The paper discusses the importance of considering human-AI interaction in the development and deployment of artificial general intelligence (AGI) systems. The authors propose six Levels of Autonomy to characterize human-AI interaction paradigms, which are correlated with the Levels of AGI. They emphasize the importance of the "No AI" paradigm and provide examples where lower levels of autonomy may be desirable for specific tasks and contexts. The authors argue that carefully considering human-AI interaction is crucial for the safe and responsible deployment of AGI models.
The Levels of Autonomy are unlocked by AGI capability progression, but the choice of autonomy level should take into account contextual details and potential risks. The authors provide concrete examples for each level of autonomy, ranging from AI as a tool to fully autonomous AI. They highlight the need for interfaces that support human-AI alignment and suggest that human-AI interaction design decisions should be carefully considered to mitigate risks.
The paper also discusses the interplay between AGI Level, Autonomy Level, and risk. Advances in model performance and generality unlock additional interaction paradigms, which in turn introduce new classes of risk. The authors argue that considering AGI Level in conjunction with Autonomy Level can provide more nuanced insights into the likely risks associated with AI systems. They emphasize the importance of investing in human-AI interaction research alongside model improvements.
In conclusion, the paper presents a clear and operationalizable definition of AGI based on six principles. It introduces the Levels of AGI ontology, which considers generality and performance in defining progress towards AGI. The authors reflect on the implications of their principles for developing a living, ecologically valid AGI benchmark and argue for the importance of engaging with this endeavor. They also highlight the need to reshape discussions around the risks associated with AGI, emphasizing that AGI is not necessarily synonymous with autonomy. Overall, the paper provides valuable insights into the importance of human-AI interaction and risk assessment in the development and deployment of AGI systems.