Part of the issue, though is that we realized that AIs had a jagged frontier, and more generally one of the takeaways is that capabilities are more fragmented/there’s less of a necessary unifying core of intelligence than expected.
It’s also worth noting that humans are also rather jagged in their abilities, showing strengths and weaknesses, and while general intelligence, often shortened to the g-factor/IQ is real, it’s also limited in it’s predictive power.
I will somewhat grant the argument that the jagged frontier affects AI more, but I can’t fully agree with claims that suggest that AI can’t do something big/dangerous enough to be an x-risk for example because of jaggedness.
Jaggedness is countering a simple inference from “big capability on dimension X and Y” ----[enthymeme: non-jaggedness]----> “big capabilities on everything including Z = destroy the world”. It’s not that “more jagged implies less dangerous”. It matters which capabilities you have.
Part of the issue, though is that we realized that AIs had a jagged frontier, and more generally one of the takeaways is that capabilities are more fragmented/there’s less of a necessary unifying core of intelligence than expected.
It’s also worth noting that humans are also rather jagged in their abilities, showing strengths and weaknesses, and while general intelligence, often shortened to the g-factor/IQ is real, it’s also limited in it’s predictive power.
I will somewhat grant the argument that the jagged frontier affects AI more, but I can’t fully agree with claims that suggest that AI can’t do something big/dangerous enough to be an x-risk for example because of jaggedness.
Jaggedness is countering a simple inference from “big capability on dimension X and Y” ----[enthymeme: non-jaggedness]----> “big capabilities on everything including Z = destroy the world”. It’s not that “more jagged implies less dangerous”. It matters which capabilities you have.