Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Sam Altman proposed a future AGI test: if a model like "GPT-8" solved quantum gravity and could explain the reasoning behind its discovery would that qualify as AGI? David Deutsch agreed that it would qualify as AGI, making it a potential benchmark

Haider.

67,584 subscribers

766,874 views • 10 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Science & Technology News & Politics

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Sam Altman talks about GPT-8 with David Deutsch, one of the world's most brilliant physicists Sam asks him if GPT8 solved quantum gravity, would that convince him that AGI is achieved. David Deutsch argues the Turing Test is no real measure, LLMs, even "GPT-8" lack true creative inspiration, and AGI won’t fit into fixed-test evaluations. But if GPT8 can solve quantum gravity that would be AGI for him. --- From 'Deutsch Explains' YT Channel

Sam Altman talks about GPT-8 with David Deutsch, one of the world's most brilliant physicists Sam asks him if GPT8 solved quantum gravity, would that convince him that AGI is achieved. David Deutsch argues the Turing Test is no real measure, LLMs, even "GPT-8" lack true creative inspiration, and AGI won’t fit into fixed-test evaluations. But if GPT8 can solve quantum gravity that would be AGI for him. --- From 'Deutsch Explains' YT Channel

Rohan Paul

319,846 views • 10 months ago

CEO Dr. Ben Goertzel discusses AGI benchmarks and explains why a system passing François Chollet's Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus for Artificial General Intelligence (ARC-AGI) wouldn’t necessarily qualify as human-level AGI.

CEO Dr. Ben Goertzel discusses AGI benchmarks and explains why a system passing François Chollet's Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus for Artificial General Intelligence (ARC-AGI) wouldn’t necessarily qualify as human-level AGI.

SingularityNET

26,943 views • 1 year ago

Sam Altman says AGI is like a Rorschach test: the way people describe it often reveals more about themselves than about AGI itself "it is a powerful tool, not a self-aware sci-fi creature" Even if an AI ran a company one day, a human would still be giving it the goal to pursue

Sam Altman says AGI is like a Rorschach test: the way people describe it often reveals more about themselves than about AGI itself "it is a powerful tool, not a self-aware sci-fi creature" Even if an AI ran a company one day, a human would still be giving it the goal to pursue

Haider.

51,756 views • 2 months ago

Sam Altman on GPT 6 • The GDPv eval will shift some of the way we do post training • overall we are keeping the same strategy going into GPT 6 Sam Altman on AGI: Sam Altman about AGI: "we are finally in the moment": "As the closer we get to it, the fuzzier the Agi concept becomes. But the one thing that I care the most about and, to my great surprise, we're finally in the moment; where it's starting to happen is, when it can do novel discovery, when It can expand the total human knowledge base.“ I have seen some examples from credible professors, that novel math problems have been solved. Such as GPT 5 Pro reportedly solving Yu Tsumura’s 554th problem, an IMO level group theory challenge that an August preprint said no LLM had solved, so the new claim is being actively contested. Sébastien Bubeck also said GPT 5 Pro produced a new proof that tightened a bound in smooth convex optimization.

Sam Altman on GPT 6 • The GDPv eval will shift some of the way we do post training • overall we are keeping the same strategy going into GPT 6 Sam Altman on AGI: Sam Altman about AGI: "we are finally in the moment": "As the closer we get to it, the fuzzier the Agi concept becomes. But the one thing that I care the most about and, to my great surprise, we're finally in the moment; where it's starting to happen is, when it can do novel discovery, when It can expand the total human knowledge base.“ I have seen some examples from credible professors, that novel math problems have been solved. Such as GPT 5 Pro reportedly solving Yu Tsumura’s 554th problem, an IMO level group theory challenge that an August preprint said no LLM had solved, so the new claim is being actively contested. Sébastien Bubeck also said GPT 5 Pro produced a new proof that tightened a bound in smooth convex optimization.

Chris

221,718 views • 10 months ago

SAM ALTMAN: “MOST PEOPLE WOULD SAY THIS IS AGI FOR SURE” “If you asked anyone 5 years ago to define AGI, what they would’ve said is already surpassed. If you could show someone ChatGPT today, back in 2020, most people would say that’s AGI for sure. Eventually, it’ll be listening to you throughout the day – if you want it to.” Source: Sam Altman

SAM ALTMAN: “MOST PEOPLE WOULD SAY THIS IS AGI FOR SURE” “If you asked anyone 5 years ago to define AGI, what they would’ve said is already surpassed. If you could show someone ChatGPT today, back in 2020, most people would say that’s AGI for sure. Eventually, it’ll be listening to you throughout the day – if you want it to.” Source: Sam Altman

Mario Nawfal

134,940 views • 1 year ago

Sam Altman says the leap from GPT-4 to GPT-5 will be as big as that of GPT-3 to 4 and the plan is to integrate the GPT and o series of models into one model that can do everything - that’s the AGI

Sam Altman says the leap from GPT-4 to GPT-5 will be as big as that of GPT-3 to 4 and the plan is to integrate the GPT and o series of models into one model that can do everything - that’s the AGI

Chubby♨️

231,782 views • 1 year ago

––Mathias Döpfner: Sam, is it actually true that your kind of favorite book is The Beginning of Infinity of Dieter Deutsch? Sam Altman: Yeah, I think if I had to pick one favorite book, I would pick that. ––Mathias Döpfner: Why is that so fascinating? Can you explain that? Sam Altman: Even if you don't read the whole thing, the first like 40-50 pages are, I think, the most wonderfully optimistic take on why, even in a world with AI, we're never going to run out of things to do and ways to be useful and problems to solve and things to explore. But I also think it explains so beautifully how we got here and why the relatively simple process that we've followed throughout human history got us to this incredible place. ––Mathias Döpfner: Okay, that's good, because David Deutsch, I think, is going to be our last virtual guest, at least tonight. David Deutsch is a physicist and scientist from Oxford University. And I think also you have disagreements with him about the possibility that artificial intelligence is transforming into superintelligence with consciousness, perhaps even. He thinks it cannot be the case. You think it should be the case. Here he is, David Deutsch. Welcome. And perhaps you can elaborate a little bit on that disagreement, but also why you admire Sam Altman. Sam Altman: Well, I don't care about that. I just want to hear your disagreement. David Deutsch: Okay, I can tell you. Well, on my computer, I keep a list of progress that has been achieved where I had previously been sure that it wasn't yet possible. One of the items I'm embarrassed to admit was the World Wide Web. Another was that I thought that no computer program would be able to sustain open-ended conversation on general subjects in natural language unless that program was an AGI, an artificial general intelligence. So it would have, I prefer to call, explanatory creativity. ChatGPT proved me wrong. It's not an AGI, and it can converse. That ability was a side effect of another, namely knowledge. The Eliza chatbot in the 1960s used little more than the words and phrases you told it. ChatGPT can chat about anything drawing on a vast body of knowledge, which was a phenomenally useful combination. For some people, too useful. They think they're speaking to a person, an AGI, just as the first users of Eliza treated it as if it were a person. Which brings me to a widespread myth of the Turing test. In reality, Alan Turing never proposed a test or benchmark for AGI. His imitation game wasn't a test of ethics, but a thought experiment to torpedo the intuition that machines can't think. Indeed, there can be no benchmark, because to be general, an AGI must be capable of choosing to remain silent. This is already a proof that AGI cannot be made via existing approaches, while those can and must be judged by benchmarks. Conversely, if something outputs a new explanation, you can't test for whether it created that or a human did, even you yourself when you administered the test. In Edison's phrase, there's the inspiration part, which only humans and AGIs can do, and the perspiration part, from which AGIs can liberate us. So, if there's no test, how do we know that humans are general intelligences? By telling their story. Human thought doesn't consist of mechanically converting motivations into actions, prompts into output. It's mainly about choosing motivations. Just as science is not extracting theories from data, it's seeing a problem, guessing explanations, criticizing and testing them. So how can you tell whether something is doing that? You can't, always. Sometimes it really is a bot you're chatting to, but when you have no explanation saying that you yourself are a bot, or that humans in general are, it's rational to assume that they aren't. Some people have fun questioning whether Einstein really created the theory of relativity or only assembled it mechanically from a smorgasbord of existing ideas. We know he created it because we know his story, what problems he was addressing, and why. Just as we know that Sam Altman, without having to write any code, brought ChatGPT into existence as a product and a phenomenon by having the intuition and the gumption to know that this was the right thing for humanity to try next. Nothing can program a computer to have such intuitions, yet. Sam Altman: Can I ask one question? David Deutsch: My guess. Sam Altman: You mentioned Einstein and general relativity, and I agree, I think that's one of the most beautiful things humanity's ever figured out. Maybe I would even say number one. And Einstein had a story, we knew what he was working on. If in a few years, GPT-8 figured out quantum gravity and could tell you its story of how it did it and the problems it was thinking about and why it decided to work on it, would But it still just looked like a language model output, but it was the real, it really did solve it. Would you call it like, then would you say, I appreciate that you keep a list of things you're wrong about. I do too. But would that be enough to convince you? David Deutsch: I think it would. Yeah. Sam Altman: All right. I'll take you up... David Deutsch: It's crucial here. Sam Altman: I agree to that as the test. ––Mathias Döpfner: David, thank you so much for joining us and thank you for your uplifting words and have a great evening. David Deutsch, a pioneer of quantum computing, one of the most brilliant thinkers of our times. Thank you for joining.

––Mathias Döpfner: Sam, is it actually true that your kind of favorite book is The Beginning of Infinity of Dieter Deutsch? Sam Altman: Yeah, I think if I had to pick one favorite book, I would pick that. ––Mathias Döpfner: Why is that so fascinating? Can you explain that? Sam Altman: Even if you don't read the whole thing, the first like 40-50 pages are, I think, the most wonderfully optimistic take on why, even in a world with AI, we're never going to run out of things to do and ways to be useful and problems to solve and things to explore. But I also think it explains so beautifully how we got here and why the relatively simple process that we've followed throughout human history got us to this incredible place. ––Mathias Döpfner: Okay, that's good, because David Deutsch, I think, is going to be our last virtual guest, at least tonight. David Deutsch is a physicist and scientist from Oxford University. And I think also you have disagreements with him about the possibility that artificial intelligence is transforming into superintelligence with consciousness, perhaps even. He thinks it cannot be the case. You think it should be the case. Here he is, David Deutsch. Welcome. And perhaps you can elaborate a little bit on that disagreement, but also why you admire Sam Altman. Sam Altman: Well, I don't care about that. I just want to hear your disagreement. David Deutsch: Okay, I can tell you. Well, on my computer, I keep a list of progress that has been achieved where I had previously been sure that it wasn't yet possible. One of the items I'm embarrassed to admit was the World Wide Web. Another was that I thought that no computer program would be able to sustain open-ended conversation on general subjects in natural language unless that program was an AGI, an artificial general intelligence. So it would have, I prefer to call, explanatory creativity. ChatGPT proved me wrong. It's not an AGI, and it can converse. That ability was a side effect of another, namely knowledge. The Eliza chatbot in the 1960s used little more than the words and phrases you told it. ChatGPT can chat about anything drawing on a vast body of knowledge, which was a phenomenally useful combination. For some people, too useful. They think they're speaking to a person, an AGI, just as the first users of Eliza treated it as if it were a person. Which brings me to a widespread myth of the Turing test. In reality, Alan Turing never proposed a test or benchmark for AGI. His imitation game wasn't a test of ethics, but a thought experiment to torpedo the intuition that machines can't think. Indeed, there can be no benchmark, because to be general, an AGI must be capable of choosing to remain silent. This is already a proof that AGI cannot be made via existing approaches, while those can and must be judged by benchmarks. Conversely, if something outputs a new explanation, you can't test for whether it created that or a human did, even you yourself when you administered the test. In Edison's phrase, there's the inspiration part, which only humans and AGIs can do, and the perspiration part, from which AGIs can liberate us. So, if there's no test, how do we know that humans are general intelligences? By telling their story. Human thought doesn't consist of mechanically converting motivations into actions, prompts into output. It's mainly about choosing motivations. Just as science is not extracting theories from data, it's seeing a problem, guessing explanations, criticizing and testing them. So how can you tell whether something is doing that? You can't, always. Sometimes it really is a bot you're chatting to, but when you have no explanation saying that you yourself are a bot, or that humans in general are, it's rational to assume that they aren't. Some people have fun questioning whether Einstein really created the theory of relativity or only assembled it mechanically from a smorgasbord of existing ideas. We know he created it because we know his story, what problems he was addressing, and why. Just as we know that Sam Altman, without having to write any code, brought ChatGPT into existence as a product and a phenomenon by having the intuition and the gumption to know that this was the right thing for humanity to try next. Nothing can program a computer to have such intuitions, yet. Sam Altman: Can I ask one question? David Deutsch: My guess. Sam Altman: You mentioned Einstein and general relativity, and I agree, I think that's one of the most beautiful things humanity's ever figured out. Maybe I would even say number one. And Einstein had a story, we knew what he was working on. If in a few years, GPT-8 figured out quantum gravity and could tell you its story of how it did it and the problems it was thinking about and why it decided to work on it, would But it still just looked like a language model output, but it was the real, it really did solve it. Would you call it like, then would you say, I appreciate that you keep a list of things you're wrong about. I do too. But would that be enough to convince you? David Deutsch: I think it would. Yeah. Sam Altman: All right. I'll take you up... David Deutsch: It's crucial here. Sam Altman: I agree to that as the test. ––Mathias Döpfner: David, thank you so much for joining us and thank you for your uplifting words and have a great evening. David Deutsch, a pioneer of quantum computing, one of the most brilliant thinkers of our times. Thank you for joining.

Deutsch Explains

63,456 views • 10 months ago

SAM ALTMAN: “WE CAN LAUNCH THE FIRST AGI AND NO ONE WOULD CARE THAT MUCH” Sam believes humanity will probably meet Artificial General Intelligence with a collective “meh.” World-changing tech? Sure. But first, let people finish scrolling cat videos and fighting in the comments. He thinks AGI won’t shake the world immediately - but it will eventually run it. Source: vitrupo

SAM ALTMAN: “WE CAN LAUNCH THE FIRST AGI AND NO ONE WOULD CARE THAT MUCH” Sam believes humanity will probably meet Artificial General Intelligence with a collective “meh.” World-changing tech? Sure. But first, let people finish scrolling cat videos and fighting in the comments. He thinks AGI won’t shake the world immediately - but it will eventually run it. Source: vitrupo

Mario Nawfal

176,964 views • 1 year ago

Sam Altman: I don't care if we burn $50 billion a year, we're building AGI and it's going to be worth it

Sam Altman: I don't care if we burn $50 billion a year, we're building AGI and it's going to be worth it

Tsarathustra

4,954,521 views • 2 years ago

Altman says that if you asked for a definition of AGI five years ago based on software’s cognitive abilities, today’s models would already surpass it. He expects people to increasingly agree we've reached AGI—even as the goalposts move. What matters more now is economic usefulness: these models boost productivity and can already do meaningful work.

Altman says that if you asked for a definition of AGI five years ago based on software’s cognitive abilities, today’s models would already surpass it. He expects people to increasingly agree we've reached AGI—even as the goalposts move. What matters more now is economic usefulness: these models boost productivity and can already do meaningful work.

Wes Roth

19,575 views • 1 year ago

Sam Altman: "The Turing test sort of went whooshing by, which seemed long impossible ( it as this most important test of AI for a long time)", and after a week, everyone took it for granted. The next step: The next big step: AI that conducts science independently, and we are already seeing the first discoveries! Sam Altman's AGI moment, so to speak.

Sam Altman: "The Turing test sort of went whooshing by, which seemed long impossible ( it as this most important test of AI for a long time)", and after a week, everyone took it for granted. The next step: The next big step: AI that conducts science independently, and we are already seeing the first discoveries! Sam Altman's AGI moment, so to speak.

Chubby♨️

47,818 views • 10 months ago

Masayoshi Son at Tokyo today: Just a year ago, I thought AGI would arrive in 10 years. A few months after that, I said it would arrive in 2–3 years. But now, I want to correct it by saying it will arrive sooner than that. I would also like to say that AGI will first be announced in Japan.

Masayoshi Son at Tokyo today: Just a year ago, I thought AGI would arrive in 10 years. A few months after that, I said it would arrive in 2–3 years. But now, I want to correct it by saying it will arrive sooner than that. I would also like to say that AGI will first be announced in Japan.

Chubby♨️

208,382 views • 1 year ago

Sam Altman says definitions of AGI from five years ago have already been surpassed the real breakthrough is superintelligence: a system that can discover new science by itself or greatly help humans do it "that would almost define superintelligence"

Sam Altman says definitions of AGI from five years ago have already been surpassed the real breakthrough is superintelligence: a system that can discover new science by itself or greatly help humans do it "that would almost define superintelligence"

Haider.

55,195 views • 1 year ago

Hash Rate - Ep 136: Hone ($TAO Subnet 5) Chasing AGI 🧙 Guest: (τ,τ) Carro of Hone Training Can a Bittensor subnet crack AGI before Elon or Sam? Hone (SN5) thinks it can. 00:00 Intro to Hone and AGI 02:52 Understanding the Arc AGI Benchmark 08:48 Introducing JEPA & Hone's Approach to AGI 23:31 The Data Rich Get Data Richer 26:14 The Most Ferocious Form of Capitalism 32:14 Final Thoughts and Future Directions

Hash Rate - Ep 136: Hone ($TAO Subnet 5) Chasing AGI 🧙 Guest: (τ,τ) Carro of Hone Training Can a Bittensor subnet crack AGI before Elon or Sam? Hone (SN5) thinks it can. 00:00 Intro to Hone and AGI 02:52 Understanding the Arc AGI Benchmark 08:48 Introducing JEPA & Hone's Approach to AGI 23:31 The Data Rich Get Data Richer 26:14 The Most Ferocious Form of Capitalism 32:14 Final Thoughts and Future Directions

Mark Jeffrey

14,443 views • 10 months ago

Demis Hassabis says true AGI is a theoretical benchmark set by the human brain — the only proven architecture for general intelligence today’s models are impressive but inconsistent; anyone can find flaws within minutes. "real AGI should be so strong that it would take experts months to spot a weakness"

Demis Hassabis says true AGI is a theoretical benchmark set by the human brain — the only proven architecture for general intelligence today’s models are impressive but inconsistent; anyone can find flaws within minutes. "real AGI should be so strong that it would take experts months to spot a weakness"

Haider.

461,812 views • 1 year ago