Well, in humans for example, some people are good at statistics and some are good at causality (and some are skilled in both!). Why I Am Only A Half-Bayesian by Judea Pearl.
But statistics and causality are really powerful examples; having an AI that was good at either would be extremely dangerous probably.
GPT4 might be exceptionally good with language but terrible at math. Maybe we could make something that was exceptionally good at, like, algebra and calculus, but was only as skilled as GPT2 at language.
So you’re saying that it would be good for it to have general skills, but better? Or that it would be good for it to have skills that humans don’t have? Or that an ensemble of narrow skills that can complement each other, but in isolation won’t be dangerous, would be good?
What do complementary skills look like?
Well, in humans for example, some people are good at statistics and some are good at causality (and some are skilled in both!). Why I Am Only A Half-Bayesian by Judea Pearl.
But statistics and causality are really powerful examples; having an AI that was good at either would be extremely dangerous probably.
GPT4 might be exceptionally good with language but terrible at math. Maybe we could make something that was exceptionally good at, like, algebra and calculus, but was only as skilled as GPT2 at language.
So you’re saying that it would be good for it to have general skills, but better? Or that it would be good for it to have skills that humans don’t have? Or that an ensemble of narrow skills that can complement each other, but in isolation won’t be dangerous, would be good?
I affirm the 2nd and 3rd guess but not the 1st.