ThreadSky
About ThreadSky
Log In
borhane.bsky.social
•
20 days ago
I’m thrilled to share new work arguing that the research community should stop treating AGI as a North-Star goal! Debates about AGI miss the forest for the trees. 🧵
Comments
Log in
with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
[–]
borhane.bsky.social
•
20 days ago
What AGI means is highly contested. That makes debates slippery. What are we debating? What’s at stake? Are we having the right debate?
The debate researchers should keep having is about the scientific, engineering, and societal goals of the field.
14
1
reply
[–]
borhane.bsky.social
•
20 days ago
⚠️We examine six key traps that hinder setting worthwhile goals: Illusion of Consensus, Supercharging Bad Science, Presuming Value-Neutrality, Goal Lottery, Generality Debt, and Normalized Exclusion. AGI narratives aggravate each.
13
1
reply
[–]
borhane.bsky.social
•
20 days ago
We then defend three recommendations for addressing these traps: specificity, pluralism, and inclusion.
7
1
reply
[–]
borhane.bsky.social
•
20 days ago
🎯 Specificity: Prioritize specific language for scientific, engineering, and societal goals.
6
1
reply
[–]
borhane.bsky.social
•
20 days ago
🎯 Pluralism: Articulate many worthwhile scientific, engineering, and societal goals and many possible paths to fulfilling them.
6
1
reply
[–]
borhane.bsky.social
•
20 days ago
🎯 Inclusion: Greater inclusion of communities and disciplines in shaping the goals of AI research is beneficial to innovation.
7
1
reply
[–]
renatagames.bsky.social
•
20 days ago
📌
1
reply
Posting Rules
Be respectful to others
No spam or self-promotion
Stay on topic
Follow Bluesky's terms of service
×
Reply
Post Reply
Comments
The debate researchers should keep having is about the scientific, engineering, and societal goals of the field.