Yeah I did say “back half”. I just think that if we can build an AI that can logically reason better than any human, combined with the total knowledge of all humans, it can start running experiments and doing “science” itself.
The word “if” in both the parent and GP is doing a lot of lifting here though, if they can do amazing feat X, then they will likewise do amazing feat Y. And I think in every instance you’ve made a credible argument.
But I don’t think we have the if yet. If I could just slip GPT-4 an executive summary of the code I meant to write and the emails I meant to send on a given day I would be doing it.
But it can’t: it’s catastrophically wrong with extreme confidence routinely. These things are easy to cherry-pick in citation but still fuck up on HellaSwag in instances a child would not.
Oh, I 100% agree we are not there. Every time a new model comes out I cook up a few undergrad math homework questions to see if they’ve gotten any better, and so far they haven’t. But, the thing I like about “reducing” AGI to solving math is that it kind of sidesteps these thorny questions about interacting with the real world to conduct experiments, etc. It’s something that, in principle, can be done with the current text interfaces, and it’s pretty easy to tell whether or not we’ve gotten there.
