Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI · HackerPapers discussions

Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI — mentioned by theptip

Thu, 24 Sep 2026 17:50:49 GMT

I think a baseline regime similar to fiduciary duty is a good starting point towards not killing everyone, and in terms of Overton Window, seems very much doable now. Of course, after we stop agents from committing felony hacking crimes. If you believe that capabilities will taper off exactly at human levels (i.e. "Competent AGI" from [1]) then fiduciary duty is likely all you need. (This would mean we stop moving the frontier almost immediately.) If you believe capabilities will go to "Virtuoso AGI" or beyond, then it's not enough. A smart enough agent can appear to be loyal, transparent…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI — mentioned by theptip

Sat, 18 Oct 2025 15:55:31 GMT

Fully autonomous agents are marketing fluff right now, but there is like $10T of TAM from promoting most knowledge workers to a manager and automating the boring 80% of their work, and this doesn’t require this full autonomy. Karpathy’s definition of “agent” here is really AGI (probably somewhere between expert and virtuoso AGI https://arxiv.org/html/2311.02462v2). In my taxonomy you can have non-AGI short-task-timeframe agents. Eg in the METR evals, I think it’s meaningful to talk about agent tasks if you set the thing loose for 4-8h human-time tasks.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI — mentioned by simonw

Sun, 15 Jun 2025 01:46:32 GMT

OpenAI: https://openai.com/index/how-should-ai-systems-behave/#citat... "By AGI, we mean highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work." AWS: https://aws.amazon.com/what-is/artificial-general-intelligen... "Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is a field of theoretical AI research that attempts to create software with human-like intelligence and the ability to self-teach. The aim is for the software to be able to perform tasks that it is not necessarily trained or developed for." DeepMind: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02462 "Artificial General Intelligence…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI — mentioned by esafak

Mon, 26 May 2025 17:14:04 GMT

The ability to extrapolate from facts. I don't think self awareness, emotions, or senses are required. You should give your definition too, so we can debate where computers fall short. See also: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI (https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02462)

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI — mentioned by johnb231

Fri, 23 May 2025 18:23:36 GMT

The Wikipedia article on AGI explains it well enough. Researchers at Google have proposed a classification scheme with multiple levels of AGI. There are different opinions in the research community. https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02462

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI — mentioned by theptip

Fri, 23 May 2025 14:37:38 GMT

No, it’s never going to be precise but it’s important to have a good rough definition. Can we just use Morris et al and move on with our lives? Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI: https://arxiv.org/html/2311.02462v4 There are generational policy and societal shifts that need to be addressed somewhere around true Competent AGI (50% of knowledge work tasks automatable). Just like climate change, we need a shared lexicon to refer to this continuum. You can argue for different values of X but the crucial point is if X% of knowledge work is automated within a…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI — mentioned by voidspark

Mon, 05 May 2025 20:11:28 GMT

> AGI would mean something which doesn't need direction or guidance to do anything There can be levels of AGI. Google DeepMind have proposed a framework that would classify ChatGPT as "Emerging AGI". ChatGPT can solve problems that it was not explicitly trained to solve, across a vast number of problem domains. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2311.02462 The paper is summarized here https://venturebeat.com/ai/here-is-how-far-we-are-to-achievi...

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI — mentioned by voidspark

Mon, 05 May 2025 19:20:33 GMT

Their multimodal models are a rudimentary form of AGI. EDIT: There can be levels of AGI. Google DeepMind have proposed a framework that would classify ChatGPT as "Emerging AGI". https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02462

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI — mentioned by nobody9999

Fri, 28 Mar 2025 06:26:43 GMT

cf. https://arxiv.org/html/2311.02462v4#S4

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI — mentioned by theptip

Tue, 18 Jun 2024 04:56:24 GMT

This seems to be so broad a definition as to no longer mean anything useful. People in general are interested in capabilities or economic impact, and GPT-2 cleared no notable thresholds in those regards. I prefer the exact opposite approach: let’s use a strict definition, and have levels to make it really explicit what we are talking about. Here is a good one: “Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI” https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02462

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI — mentioned by pmayrgundter

Tue, 28 May 2024 11:16:21 GMT

I'm curious about the framing of research like this.. "The poor performance of transformers on arithmetic tasks" (relative to what?) and how that informs the adjacent conversation on progress towards AGI. Some say AGI has already been achieved, others that it's years or decades away. When I dig into the disagreement, it often partially depends on the perspective of how competent humans are on the tasks in question, with the optimists being, I think, more realistic about variance in human intelligence and the pessimists seeming to reserve the term "general intelligence" for possessing a nearly…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI — mentioned by tikkun

Thu, 07 Mar 2024 14:56:19 GMT

See Table 1 on Page 6 in this paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/2311.02462.pdf

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI — mentioned by theptip

Sat, 02 Mar 2024 19:44:02 GMT

I think the DeepMind taxonomy is good; recognize that AGI is too broad a term, so add levels to make it specific. https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02462 “Competent AGI” (or a little earlier) would be my guess for where OpenAI would not hand it over to MS. Honestly if they displaced 10% of workers I think they might call that the threshold.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI — mentioned by lucubratory

Thu, 14 Dec 2023 13:24:43 GMT

What specific demonstrations of capability by AI would convince you that your proposed timeline for reaching AGI isn't correct, and that it will happen significantly sooner? If it helps to think about it, there's a good DeepMind paper on a relatively concrete scaling system on the path to AGI: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02462

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI — mentioned by kevindamm

Sun, 10 Dec 2023 15:50:02 GMT

What you're looking for is embodiment, and actually this was explicitly left aside in a recent paper that attempts to give measurement criteria for AGI[0]. But I agree with you that the entire lived sensation is critical to approaching any objective involving alignment. [0] https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02462

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI — mentioned by Philpax

Thu, 23 Nov 2023 12:30:30 GMT

DeepMind wrote a paper categorising AGI: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2311.02462.pdf

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI — mentioned by ignoramous

Mon, 20 Nov 2023 05:59:22 GMT

> Did he really fire Sam over "AI safety" concerns? How is that remotely rational. Not rational iff (and unlike Sustkever, Hinton, Bengio) you are not a "doomer" / "decel". Ilya's very vocal and on record that he suspects there may be "something else" going on with these models. He and DeepMind claim AlphaGo is already AGI (correction: ASI) in a very narrow domain (https://www.arxiv-vanity.com/papers/2311.02462/). Ilya particularly predicts it is a given that Neural Networks would achieve broad AGI (superintelligence) before alignment is figured out, unless researchers start putting more…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI — mentioned by dr_dshiv

Sun, 19 Nov 2023 03:21:16 GMT

https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02462 On operationalizing definitions of AGI

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI — mentioned by lucubratory

Sat, 18 Nov 2023 05:19:42 GMT

Paper from two weeks ago by Google DeepMind putting together a very good definition that I haven't seen anyone in the field disagree with yet: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02462

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI — mentioned by peter_d_sherman

Tue, 14 Nov 2023 02:28:22 GMT

Paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2311.02462.pdf (Most notable are the comparison charts on pages 6 & 11...)

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI — HN submission

Mon, 13 Nov 2023 22:51:45 GMT

Levels of AGI: Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI

89 points; 74 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI — HN submission

Fri, 10 Nov 2023 03:15:16 GMT

Levels of AGI: Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI

3 points; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI — HN submission

Thu, 09 Nov 2023 03:50:22 GMT

DeepMind on the Definitions and Levels of AGI

3 points; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI — HN submission

Wed, 08 Nov 2023 10:45:32 GMT

Levels of AGI: Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI

3 points; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.