AGI would produce novel treatments for diseases at rates equivalent to what a human can do today.
replyWhich is to say, not that fast.
Whether AI is AGI does not depend on the speed at which it operates/thinks. Clearly all the theoretical work done by AGI will be done orders of magnitude quicker than humans can do it.
replyIt is an open question to what extent practical experimentation/work will be a bottleneck for the theoretical work. It stands to reason that it is improbable that it will be the bottleneck for 100% of the speed of treatment development.
You are describing superintelligence (ASI) not general intelligence (AGI)
replyI think treatment is not good benchmark - it requires lots of waiting and lots of regulatory work. The better benchmark - in my opinion- would be math discovery.
replyThat is an absolutely terrible benchmark. Inference over a bounded search space is not a good measure of what "intelligence" actually is. part of the reason they are using math and not something actually challenging like long distance interstate trucking is because it's so much simpler and easier than what make intelligence intelligent.
replyJust seems very weird to call getting Fields-medal-level results "inference over a bounded search space" and "not actually challenging".
replyClaude Fable recently proved the existence of complex structures over S^6 (6-sphere).
replyIf I had to guess, I think LLMs will be inventing highly original new mathematics within the next year. I think it will be approached as an optimisation problem, targeting how quickly LLMs can solve classes of maths problems as a function of the definitions they need to conjure up to do so.
Wouldn’t that be ASI? I.e. surpassing humans by outputting novel treatments at a far greater rate than normal humans?
reply