Fully Autonomous AI Agents Should Not be Developed
Paper
•
2502.02649
•
Published
•
11
•
3
Knut Jägersberg
KnutJaegersberg
AI & ML interests
NLP, opinion mining, narrative intelligence
Recent Activity
commented on
a paper
about 8 hours ago
Fully Autonomous AI Agents Should Not be Developed
commented on
a paper
about 8 hours ago
Fully Autonomous AI Agents Should Not be Developed
liked
a model
about 12 hours ago
kyutai/hibiki-1b-pytorch-bf16
Organizations
KnutJaegersberg's activity
commented
2
papers
about 8 hours ago
liked
2
models
about 12 hours ago
upvoted
a
collection
about 19 hours ago
liked
2
models
2 days ago
upvoted
a
paper
3 days ago
liked
3
models
3 days ago
liked
3
models
4 days ago
reacted to
chansung's
post with 👍
4 days ago
Post
4025
A brief summary of the o3-mini
The OpenAI o3-mini model is a significant improvement over the o1-mini, reaching o1 performance levels. While generally good, its performance isn't universally better than previous models (o1, o1-prev.) or GPT-4o across all benchmarks. This means workflows should be re-evaluated with each model upgrade.
The o3-mini has "low," "medium," and "high" versions, with "low" being the base model used for benchmarking. It's speculated that the higher versions simply involve more processing. A fair comparison with other models like Gemini 2.0 Thinking or DeepSeek-R1 would likely need to use the "low" version and a similar "think more" mechanism.
The system card is recommended reading due to its comprehensive benchmark data.
https://openai.com/index/openai-o3-mini/
The OpenAI o3-mini model is a significant improvement over the o1-mini, reaching o1 performance levels. While generally good, its performance isn't universally better than previous models (o1, o1-prev.) or GPT-4o across all benchmarks. This means workflows should be re-evaluated with each model upgrade.
The o3-mini has "low," "medium," and "high" versions, with "low" being the base model used for benchmarking. It's speculated that the higher versions simply involve more processing. A fair comparison with other models like Gemini 2.0 Thinking or DeepSeek-R1 would likely need to use the "low" version and a similar "think more" mechanism.
The system card is recommended reading due to its comprehensive benchmark data.
https://openai.com/index/openai-o3-mini/
liked
a
dataset
5 days ago
updated
a
model
7 days ago
published
a
model
7 days ago
posted
an
update
7 days ago
Post
931
Anthropomorphic reasoning about neuromorphic AGI safety
Summary of "Anthropomorphic Reasoning About Neuromorphic AGI Safety"
This paper explores safety strategies for neuromorphic artificial general intelligence (AGI), defined as systems designed by reverse-engineering essential computations of the human brain. Key arguments and proposals include:
1. Anthropomorphic Reasoning Validity:
- Neuromorphic AGI’s design and assessment rely on human cognition models, making anthropomorphic reasoning (using human-like traits) critical for safety analysis. Comparisons to human behavior and neural mechanisms provide insights into AGI behavior and risks.
2. Countering Safety Criticisms:
- The authors challenge claims that neuromorphic AGI is inherently more dangerous than other AGI approaches. They argue all AGI systems face intractable verification challenges (e.g., real-world unpredictability, incomputable action validation). Neuromorphic AGI may even offer safety advantages by enabling comparisons to human cognitive processes.
3. Motivational Architecture:
- Basic drives (e.g., curiosity, social interaction) are essential for cognitive development and safety. These pre-conceptual, hardwired drives (analogous to human hunger or affiliation) shape learning and behavior. The orthogonality thesis (intelligence and goals as independent) is contested, as neuromorphic AGI’s drives likely intertwine with its cognitive architecture.
4. Safety Strategies:
- **Social Drives**: Embedding drives like caregiving, affiliation, and cooperation ensures AGI develops prosocial values through human interaction.
- **Bounded Reward Systems**: Human-like satiation mechanisms (e.g., diminishing rewards after fulfillment) prevent extreme behaviors (e.g., paperclip maximization).
- **Developmental Environment**: Exposure to diverse, positive human interactions and moral examples fosters
https://ccnlab.org/papers/JilkHerdReadEtAl17.pdf
Summary of "Anthropomorphic Reasoning About Neuromorphic AGI Safety"
This paper explores safety strategies for neuromorphic artificial general intelligence (AGI), defined as systems designed by reverse-engineering essential computations of the human brain. Key arguments and proposals include:
1. Anthropomorphic Reasoning Validity:
- Neuromorphic AGI’s design and assessment rely on human cognition models, making anthropomorphic reasoning (using human-like traits) critical for safety analysis. Comparisons to human behavior and neural mechanisms provide insights into AGI behavior and risks.
2. Countering Safety Criticisms:
- The authors challenge claims that neuromorphic AGI is inherently more dangerous than other AGI approaches. They argue all AGI systems face intractable verification challenges (e.g., real-world unpredictability, incomputable action validation). Neuromorphic AGI may even offer safety advantages by enabling comparisons to human cognitive processes.
3. Motivational Architecture:
- Basic drives (e.g., curiosity, social interaction) are essential for cognitive development and safety. These pre-conceptual, hardwired drives (analogous to human hunger or affiliation) shape learning and behavior. The orthogonality thesis (intelligence and goals as independent) is contested, as neuromorphic AGI’s drives likely intertwine with its cognitive architecture.
4. Safety Strategies:
- **Social Drives**: Embedding drives like caregiving, affiliation, and cooperation ensures AGI develops prosocial values through human interaction.
- **Bounded Reward Systems**: Human-like satiation mechanisms (e.g., diminishing rewards after fulfillment) prevent extreme behaviors (e.g., paperclip maximization).
- **Developmental Environment**: Exposure to diverse, positive human interactions and moral examples fosters
https://ccnlab.org/papers/JilkHerdReadEtAl17.pdf