The traditional view favors the AI-AGI-ASI pathway, suggesting it is safer and allows humans to better understand and control AI development. Critics argue that aiming directly for ASI could bypass the limitations of AGI and lead to greater advancements. However, concerns about controlling ASI and ensuring it aligns with human values persist. The debate is further complicated by AI's dual-use nature, which can lead to both positive and negative outcomes. The article concludes by questioning whether humanity's pursuit of AGI and ASI is a self-set trap or an unstoppable journey toward potential nirvana.
Key takeaways:
- The debate centers on whether achieving artificial superintelligence (ASI) requires first attaining artificial general intelligence (AGI) or if a direct leap to ASI is possible.
- There are two main perspectives: the traditionalist view, which advocates for a two-step process from AI to AGI to ASI, and the upstart view, which suggests a direct path from AI to ASI.
- Proponents of the traditionalist view argue that reaching AGI first is safer and allows for better preparation and alignment with human values before advancing to ASI.
- Advocates for the direct AI-ASI pathway believe that aiming for ASI could yield greater benefits and breakthroughs, such as solving complex global issues, without the intermediary step of AGI.