Agreed, David. The post Where’s my ten minute AGI? by Anson Ho discusses why METR’s task time horizon does not translate into as much automation as one may naively expect.
[...] if AIs are actually able to perform most tasks on 1-hour task horizons, why don’t we see more real-world task automation? For example, most emails take less than an hour to write, but crafting emails remains an important part of the lives of billions of people every day.
Some of this could be due to people underusing AI systems,2 but in this post I want to focus on reasons that are more fundamental to the capabilities of AI systems. In particular, I think there are three such reasons that are the most important:
Tasks are very bundled together and hard to separate out.
While it’s hard to be quantitative about just how much each of these reasons matter, they’re all strong enough to explain why many tasks with 1-hour or even 10-minute horizons remain unautomated.
Yeah, I am inclined to agree-for what my opinion is worth which on this topic is probably not that much-that there will be many things AIs can’t do even once they have a METR 80% time-horizon of say 2 days. But I am less sure of that than I am of the meta-level point about this being an important crux.
Agreed, David. The post Where’s my ten minute AGI? by Anson Ho discusses why METR’s task time horizon does not translate into as much automation as one may naively expect.
Yeah, I am inclined to agree-for what my opinion is worth which on this topic is probably not that much-that there will be many things AIs can’t do even once they have a METR 80% time-horizon of say 2 days. But I am less sure of that than I am of the meta-level point about this being an important crux.