I do think humans can work together. I think they can work together on projects large enough that no single one of them could complete it. I don’t think anyone is disputing this.
Somewhat more speculatively, I expect that copies of a sufficiently generally skilled proto-AGI could be swapped into many of the roles of a large team project.
I think the closer this proto-AGI is to being fully as general and competent in all areas that humans can be competent, the more roles you will be able to swap it in for.
The question then is about how much you can simplify and incrementalize the teamwork process before it stops working. And which of these roles you can then swap a today-level proto-AGI into. There’s definitely some overhead in splitting up tasks, so the smaller the pieces the task is broken into, the more inefficiency you should expect to accrue.
Well, Ought gathered some data about a point on the spectrum of role division that is definitely too simple/unstructured/incremental to be functional.
I don’t think they need to find the exact minimum point on this spectrum for the research agenda to proceed. So my personal recommendation would be to aim at something which seems more likely to be on the functional side of the spectrum.
Here’s my guess at a plan which covers the necessary structural aspects:
Planning stage
‘Broad vision solution suggester’ followed by a
‘Specific task and task-order Planner’
Define inputs and outputs of the planned tasks. Specifies what constitutes success for each part. Orders tasks based on dependencies.
Building stage
For each task: must complete task, declare success or failure. If success, describe specific operating parameters of result. (Might exceed minimum specifications).
If failure is declared, return to planning stage with goal: plan a way around the encountered block, then return to building stage to implement the new plan.
Integration stage
Integration specialist: does it all work together as planned?
If no, return to planning with goal: create new tasks to cover making these pieces work together. Then proceed to building stage to implement the new plan.
I do think humans can work together. I think they can work together on projects large enough that no single one of them could complete it. I don’t think anyone is disputing this. Somewhat more speculatively, I expect that copies of a sufficiently generally skilled proto-AGI could be swapped into many of the roles of a large team project.
I think the closer this proto-AGI is to being fully as general and competent in all areas that humans can be competent, the more roles you will be able to swap it in for.
The question then is about how much you can simplify and incrementalize the teamwork process before it stops working. And which of these roles you can then swap a today-level proto-AGI into. There’s definitely some overhead in splitting up tasks, so the smaller the pieces the task is broken into, the more inefficiency you should expect to accrue.
Well, Ought gathered some data about a point on the spectrum of role division that is definitely too simple/unstructured/incremental to be functional. I don’t think they need to find the exact minimum point on this spectrum for the research agenda to proceed. So my personal recommendation would be to aim at something which seems more likely to be on the functional side of the spectrum.
Here’s my guess at a plan which covers the necessary structural aspects:
Planning stage
‘Broad vision solution suggester’ followed by a ‘Specific task and task-order Planner’ Define inputs and outputs of the planned tasks. Specifies what constitutes success for each part. Orders tasks based on dependencies.
Building stage
For each task: must complete task, declare success or failure. If success, describe specific operating parameters of result. (Might exceed minimum specifications).
If failure is declared, return to planning stage with goal: plan a way around the encountered block, then return to building stage to implement the new plan.
Integration stage
Integration specialist: does it all work together as planned? If no, return to planning with goal: create new tasks to cover making these pieces work together. Then proceed to building stage to implement the new plan.