Eliezer Yudkowsky

And to this, the answer is, well, look at natural selection spitting out humans.

We know that it does not take exponentially more resource investments to produce linear increases in competence in hominids because each mutation...

that rises to fixation, like if the impact it has in small enough, it will probably never reach fixation.

So, and there's like only so many new mutations you can fix per generation.

So like given how long it took to evolve humans, we can actually say with some confidence that there were not like logarithmically diminishing returns on the individual mutations increasing intelligence.

So, example of fraction of sub-debate.

And the thing that Robin Hanson said was more complicated than that.

In a brief summary, he was like, well, you won't have one system that's better at everything.

You'll have a bunch of different systems that are good at different narrow things.

And I think that was falsified by GPT-4, but probably Robin Hanson would say something else.

The people have a sense that there's a kind of, I mean, they're really impressed by the rapid developments of chat GPT and GPT-4, so there's a sense that there's a...

I think there's a definite point where everybody falls over dead because you got something that was sufficiently smarter than everybody.

And that's a definite point of time.

But when do we have AGI?

When are people fighting over whether or not we have AGI?

Well, some people are starting to fight over it as of GPT-4.

You could make, yeah, like, if you prompted being the right way, could go argue for its own consciousness in front of the Supreme Court right now.

I don't think you can do that successfully right now.

Because the Supreme Court wouldn't believe it?

Well, let me see.