(Note: Experts agree it wasn’t.)
Weasel word. Perhaps change to "it almost certainly wasn't" and link to this tweet / experiment from Rob Miles?
(Note: Experts agree it wasn’t.)
Weasel word. Perhaps change to "it almost certainly wasn't" and link to this tweet / experiment from Rob Miles?
Metacommentary:

Computers have bested world champions in board games like chess and Go, and video games like Starcraft and DOTA. They’ve achieved superhuman results in scientific tasks such as protein structure prediction. They can generate images and art of nearly anything given just a text description. A chatbot was recently even able to convince a senior engineer at Google that it was sentient. (Note: Experts agree it wasn’t.)
While impressive, each of these systems were trained to do just that one thing. The chess system, for example, is utterly incapable of producing anything resembling a coherent sentence. It just plays chess.
These types of systems are often referred to as “narrow” Artificial Intelligence (AI) because they can only do a narrow set of things.
By contrast, an Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) is a computer system that is as good or better than humans across a wide range of tasks.
This is the type of AI you’re probably used to seeing in movies, TV shows, books, video games, etc. It would be capable of all the mental tasks a human can do. It could:
It would be able to do all of this at least as well as (if not better than) humans.
An AGI system would be incredibly powerful and widely useful. It could help cure cancer and other diseases, find new clean sources of energy, advance space exploration, and more. It could also be used to just make tons of money. More negatively, it could be used by a government, military, or individual to wage war, dominate world politics, or otherwise exert control over others.
Given this potential, a handful of major companies and governments are already working to build AGI. In particular, there are large, well-funded industrial AI labs such as Google Brain, Microsoft AI Research, OpenAI, and Deepmind actively working on this. Not to mention, all the world superpowers (USA, EU, China, Russia, etc.) are investing heavily as well. Moreover, as the possibility of AGI becomes increasingly apparent, more and more companies and governments will begin to pursue this research.
Like other powerful technologies, AGI is not without risk. Even our current, relatively weak and narrow systems have problems. Some systems have been shown to exhibit racial, gender, or other biases based on the data they were trained on. Others have learned to “cheat” on their programmed goal in sometimes clever, sometimes hilarious ways. Despite their relative weakness, current AI systems can already have profound negative societal impacts. For example, many people blame social media recommendation systems for increasing political polarization and distrust.
Such failures are common enough that we can’t just assume much more powerful, complicated systems will automatically be safe. In fact, there are reasons to think advanced AI might be unsafe by default.
When it comes to risks from advanced AI, the most common portrayal in the media is Terminator-style killer robots. While this is a risk (see the controversial research into lethal autonomous weapons), there exist many other more mundane risks which are effectively scaled-up versions of the same types of issues we already see in less powerful AI systems: subtle computer bugs, unintended consequences, and misuse. Given the power of AGI, even seemingly small issues could have major consequences.
There are also risks beyond those already present in current systems. For example, one possible failure mode might be AI with an obsessive, singular focus on its goal without regard to anything else, such as human ethics. For example, consider a corporate AI with the goal to “maximize profit” that realizes that instead of making the highest quality product, it should make the most addictive product and addict as many people as possible (a la Big Tobacco). Another failure mode is a world in which humans become so reliant on powerful AI that we are unable to survive without it (e.g. a world in which all food is grown / provided by AI). Analysts in DC are concerned about another risk: that AIs might be incentivized to deceive humans in order to achieve their goals. Humans are obviously capable of deception, so we should expect a sufficiently advanced AI will be capable of the same. As a final example, an AGI in the wrong hands could enable or further strengthen totalitarian regimes / surveillance states (Note: China already appears to be taking steps in this direction.)
While there are a lot of risks advanced AI systems could introduce, these are not unsolvable problems. They just need serious effort and research to prevent. Broadly speaking the path to safe AI consists of both 1) safety-focused technical research to, for example, detect and prevent dangerous AI misbehavior and 2) policy measures to prevent things like misuse and a nuclear weapons style arms race. Each of these are likely to be challenging for different reasons. Given we don’t really know when AGI will be possible, now is the time to start this work so that we’re ready when the time does come.
Thanks for this Sean! I think work like this is exceptionally useful as introductory information for busy people who are likely to pattern match "advanced AI" to "terminator" or "beyond time horizon".
One piece of feedback I'll offer is to encourage you to consider whether it's possible to link narrow AI ethics concerns to AGI alignment in a way that your last point, "there is work that can be done" shows how current efforts to address narrow AI issues can be linked to AGI. This is especially relevant for governance. This could help people understand why it's important to address AGI issues now, rather than waiting until narrow AI ethics is "fixed" (a misperception I've seen a few times).