CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 281Psychiatry, Mental Health, NeuroscienceArtificial Intelligence ApplicationsEthics and Social Impacts of AI

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 59 of the 59 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 10 of the 39 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI

Open access
Morris, Meredith Ringel, Sohl-Dickstein, Jascha, Fiedel, Noah, Warkentin, Tris, Dafoe, Allan, Faust, Aleksandra, Farabet, Clement, Legg, Shane·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2311.02462arXiv 2311.02462
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We propose a framework for classifying the capabilities and behavior of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) models and their precursors. This framework introduces levels of AGI performance, generality, and autonomy, providing a common language to compare models, assess risks, and measure progress along the path to AGI. To develop our framework, we analyze existing definitions of AGI, and distill six principles that a useful ontology for AGI should satisfy. With these principles in mind, we propose "Levels of AGI" based on depth (performance) and breadth (generality) of capabilities, and reflect on how current systems fit into this ontology. We discuss the challenging requirements for future benchmarks that quantify the behavior and capabilities of AGI models against these levels. Finally, we discuss how these levels of AGI interact with deployment considerations such as autonomy and risk, and emphasize the importance of carefully selecting Human-AI Interaction paradigms for responsible and safe deployment of highly capable AI systems.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This position paper proposes a leveled ontology for AGI that separates performance (depth) from generality (breadth), with six principles for operationalizing AGI. It argues current frontier language models are best classified as Level 1 “Emerging AGI” and that no public system has reached “Competent AGI” as of September 2023.

Key findings

  • Proposes a Levels of AGI matrix: performance levels Emerging, Competent (≥50th percentile of skilled adults), Expert (≥90th), Exceptional (≥99th), and Superhuman (outperforms 100% of humans), crossed with Narrow vs. General generality; Competent AGI, Expert AGI, Exceptional AGI, and ASI are listed as not yet achieved.
  • Distills six principles for an operationalizable AGI definition: focus on capabilities not processes; generality and performance; cognitive/metacognitive rather than physical tasks; potential not deployment; ecological validity; and the path to AGI rather than a single endpoint.
  • Classifies current frontier LLMs (ChatGPT, Bard, Llama 2, Gemini) as Level 1 “Emerging AGI” overall, with “Competent” performance on some tasks (e.g., short essay writing, simple coding) but “Emerging” performance on most tasks (e.g., mathematical abilities, factuality).
  • Introduces six Levels of Autonomy (No AI, AI as Tool, AI as Consultant, AI as Collaborator, AI as Expert, AI as Agent) and argues autonomy is unlocked but not determined by AGI level, with risk depending on the combination.

Methods

  • Position/analysis paper: examines nine prominent AGI definitions (Turing Test, strong AI, brain analogies, human-level cognitive tasks, ability to learn tasks, economically valuable work, flexible/general “Coffee Test,” Artificial Capable Intelligence, and SOTA LLMs as generalists) and distills six principles.
  • Proposes a two-dimensional leveled taxonomy (performance × generality) plus a companion autonomy taxonomy, and discusses requirements for future AGI benchmarks and risk assessment.
  • No empirical study, dataset, or benchmark is introduced; classifications of example systems are described as approximate.

Limitations

  • Stated: the authors do not propose a benchmark; they leave open what task set constitutes generality, what proportion of tasks must be mastered, and whether certain tasks are mandatory, calling instead for a living benchmark.
  • Stated: assignment of example systems to cells is approximate, unambiguous classification requires a standardized benchmark, and the risk analysis is incomplete; predictions about which autonomy levels are unlocked are speculative.
  • Evident: as a position paper, it provides no empirical validation of the levels, no inter-rater reliability for system classifications, and no quantitative evaluation of the proposed framework.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2311.02462

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

10 of 39 cited sources checked · 4 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Interpretationcitation

    Suleyman's ACI framing has the downside of potentially introducing alignment risks by only targeting fiscal profit.

    “has the additional downside of potentially introducing alignment risks (Kenton et al., 2021) by only targeting fiscal profit.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kenton et al., 2021 source
  • Premisecitation

    There is no scientific consensus on methods for determining whether machines possess strong AI attributes such as consciousness.

    “there is no scientific consensus on methods for determining whether machines possess strong AI attributes such as consciousness (Butlin et al., 2023)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Butlin et al., 2023 source

      The Introduction says expert opinions about AI consciousness are highly divergent, and the Executive Summary describes the authors’ assessment rubric as provisional. This supports the lack of a settled approach to assessing consciousness, but the paper does not address methods for determining other “strong AI attributes.” (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Interpretationcitation

    It is not a necessary precursor for AGI that systems possess qualities such as consciousness or sentience.

    “similarly, it is not a necessary precursor for AGI that systems possess qualities such as consciousness (subjective awareness) (Butlin et al., 2023) or sentience (the ability to have feelings), since these qualities have a process focus.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Butlin et al., 2023 source

      Section 4.2 (page unavailable) says we may find ways to build high-performing AI systems that are not conscious, supporting the idea that consciousness need not accompany greater AI capability. It does not specifically establish that consciousness is unnecessary for AGI, and it frames the possibility cautiously. The citation is attached to consciousness, not the separate claim about sentience. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    Physical capabilities for AI systems seem to be lagging behind non-physical capabilities.

    “Despite recent advances in robotics (Brohan et al., 2023), physical capabilities for AI systems seem to be lagging behind non-physical capabilities.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Brohan et al., 2023 source
  • Findingcitation

    AlphaFold is a Level 5 Narrow AI ("Superhuman Narrow AI") since it performs a single task above the level of the world's top scientists.

    “we posit that AlphaFold (Jumper et al., 2021;Varadi et al., 2021) is a Level 5 Narrow AI (“Superhuman Narrow AI”) since it performs a single task (predicting a protein's 3D structure from an amino acid sequence) above the level of the world's top scientists.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Jumper et al., 2021 source

      The AlphaFold network section describes predicting a protein’s 3D coordinates from its amino acid sequence and related inputs. The Main section reports that AlphaFold was substantially more accurate than competing methods in the CASP14 assessment, but it does not compare its performance directly with the world’s top scientists. The Level 5 label is the citing authors’ own proposed classification. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Varadi et al., 2021 source

      The Introduction (page unavailable) identifies AlphaFold as an AI system that predicts protein structures from amino-acid sequences and describes its accuracy as unprecedented. It does not compare AlphaFold’s performance with that of the world’s top scientists. The Level 5 classification is explicitly the citing authors’ own proposal, not a classification attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.85)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 53
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 9

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Interpretationcitation

    The role of human-AI interaction research can be viewed as ensuring new AI systems are usable by and useful to people such that AI systems successfully extend people's capabilities.

    “Conversely, the role of human-AI interaction research can be viewed as ensuring new AI systems are usable by and useful to people such that AI systems successfully extend people's capabilities (i.e.,”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Brynjolfsson, 2022 source

      The paper argues that AI can augment human capabilities, enabling people to do things they could not do before (p. 3), and that augmentation opens new opportunities (p. 10). It does not describe the role of human-AI interaction research or say that ensuring systems are usable and useful is how that augmentation is achieved. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Englebart, 1962

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingcitation

    As of September 2023, frontier language models exhibit "Competent" performance levels for some tasks, but are still at "Emerging" performance levels for most tasks.

    “we posit that as of this writing in September 2023, frontier language models (e.g., ChatGPT (OpenAI, 2023), Bard (Anil et al., 2023), Llama2 (Touvron et al., 2023), etc.) exhibit “Competent” performance levels for some tasks (e.g., short essay writing, simple coding), but are still at “Emerging” performance levels for most tasks (e.g., mathematical abilities, tasks involving factuality).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites OpenAI, 2023 source
    • cites Anil et al., 2023 source
    • cites Touvron et al., 2023

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisereasoning

    The paper characterizes autonomy through the lens of the nature of human-AI interaction style, rather than the computer-centric perspective of prior automation taxonomies.

    “Unlike prior taxonomies of computer automation (Sheridan et al., 1978;Sheridan & Parasuraman, 2005;Parasuraman et al., 2000) that take a computer-centric perspective (fram-ing automation in terms of how much control the designer relinquishes to computers), we characterize the concept of autonomy through the lens of the nature of human-AI interaction style”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Sheridan et al., 1978

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Sheridan & Parasuraman, 2005

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Parasuraman et al., 2000 source

      Section III (p. 2) describes automation levels as increasing the computer’s autonomy over human action, supporting the claim’s description of how levels are framed. But Section II (p. 1) says the model is guided by human-centered automation, and the Introduction (p. 1) makes human-performance consequences its primary design criterion. Calling this paper’s perspective simply computer-centric therefore overstates the contrast; the citing authors’ human-AI interaction approach is their own characterization, not a claim this source must establish. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingnone given

    The majority of definitions of AGI focus on what an AGI can accomplish, not on the mechanism by which it accomplishes tasks.

    “The majority of definitions focus on what an AGI can accomplish, not on the mechanism by which it accomplishes tasks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Findingnone given

    The assignment of example systems to cells is approximate.

    “The assignment of example systems to cells is approximate.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingreasoning

    All of the above definitions emphasize generality to varying degrees, but some exclude performance criteria.

    “All of the above definitions emphasize generality to varying degrees, but some exclude performance criteria.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Findingnone given

    Most definitions of AGI focus on cognitive tasks, by which we mean non-physical tasks.

    “Most definitions focus on cognitive tasks, by which we mean non-physical tasks.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Findingnone given

    The "Competent AGI" level has not been achieved by any public systems at the time of writing.

    “The “Competent AGI” level, which has not been achieved by any public systems at the time of writing, best corresponds to many prior conceptions of AGI, and may precipitate rapid societal change once achieved.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

    Interpretationreasoning

    OpenAI's definition of AGI does not capture all criteria that may be part of general intelligence.

    “A shortcoming of this definition is that it does not capture all of the criteria that may be part of “general intelligence.””
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites OpenAI, 2018

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Marcus's definition captures both generality and performance.

    “This definition captures both generality and performance (via the inclusion of reliability)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Marcus, 2022b

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Complex, real-world tasks may have more ecological validity than many current AI benchmarks.

    “such tasks may have more ecological validity than many current AI benchmarks”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Mustafa Suleyman and Michael Bhaskar, 2023

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Suleyman's ACI framing is more narrow than OpenAI's definition of economically valuable work.

    “This framing is more narrow than OpenAI's definition of economically valuable work”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Mustafa Suleyman and Michael Bhaskar, 2023

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites OpenAI, 2018

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Framing AGI in terms of economic value implies a need for deployment to realize that value, whereas a focus on capabilities might only require potential.

    “Another challenge with framing AGI in terms of economic value is the implied need for deployment in order to realize that value, whereas a focus on capabilities might only require the potential for an AGI to execute a task.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites OpenAI, 2018

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Generality must be paired with a measure of performance for AGI.

    “While we agree that generality is a crucial characteristic of AGI, we posit that it must also be paired with a measure of performance (i.e., if an LLM can write code or perform math, but is not reliably correct, then its generality is not yet sufficiently performant).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Agüera y Arcas & Norvig, 2023

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

    Interpretationreasoning

    AGI systems need not necessarily think or understand in a human-like way.

    “This focus on capabilities implies that AGI systems need not necessarily think or understand in a human-like way (since this focuses on processes)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Some tasks associated with intelligence may not have a well-defined economic value.

    “There are tasks associated with intelligence that may not have a well-defined economic value (e.g., artistic creativity or emotional intelligence).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationnone given

    General systems that broadly perform at a level N may be able to perform a narrow subset of tasks at higher levels.

    “Note that general systems that broadly perform at a level N may be able to perform a narrow subset of tasks at higher levels.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The level-based approach to defining AGI supports the coexistence of many prominent formulations.

    “This level-based approach to defining AGI supports the coexistence of many prominent formulations -for example, Aguera y Arcas & Norvig's definition (Agüera y Arcas & Norvig, 2023) would fall into the “Emerging AGI” category of our ontology, while OpenAI's threshold of labor replacement (OpenAI, 2018) better matches “Exceptional AGI.””
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Agüera y Arcas & Norvig, 2023

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites OpenAI, 2018

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Interpretationcitation

    The "Competent AGI" level is probably the best catch-all for many existing definitions of AGI.

    “Our “Competent AGI” level is probably the best catch-all for many existing definitions of AGI (e.g., the Legg (Legg, 2008), Shanahan (Shanahan, 2015), and Suleyman (Mustafa Suleyman and Michael Bhaskar, 2023) formulations).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Legg, 2008

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Shanahan, 2015

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Mustafa Suleyman and Michael Bhaskar, 2023

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationnone given

    The paper introduced Levels of Autonomy that are unlocked, but not determined by, progression through the Levels of AGI.

    “We introduced Levels of Autonomy that are unlocked, but not determined by, progression through the Levels of AGI.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Interpretationcitation

    Level 5 Self-Driving vehicles would likely be a Level 4 or 5 Narrow AI under the paper's taxonomy.

    “While Level 5 Self-Driving (SAE International, 2021) vehicles would likely be a Level 4 or 5 Narrow AI under our taxonomy, the same considerations regarding human vs. computer autonomy apply to AGIs.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites SAE International, 2021

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Interpretationreasoning

    In self-driving vehicles, when Level 5 Self-Driving technology is widely available, there may be reasons for using a Level 0 (No Automation) vehicle.

    “For example, in the domain of self-driving vehicles, when Level 5 Self-Driving technology is widely available, there may be reasons for using a Level 0 (No Automation) vehicle.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

    Interpretationcitation

    Including items matched to ASL capabilities in any AGI benchmark would connect points in the AGI taxonomy to specific risks and mitigations.

    “Including items matched to ASL capabilities in any AGI benchmark would connect points in our AGI taxonomy to specific risks and mitigations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Anthropic, 2023b

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationnone given

    Reaching "Expert AGI" likely alleviates some risks introduced by "Emerging AGI" and "Competent AGI," such as the risk of incorrect task execution.

    “On the other hand, reaching “Expert AGI” likely alleviates some risks introduced by “Emerging AGI” and “Competent AGI,” such as the risk of incorrect task execution.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Considering AGI systems in the context of use by people allows us to reflect on the interplay between advances in models and advances in human-AI interaction paradigms.

    “Considering AGI systems in the context of use by people allows us to reflect on the interplay between advances in models and advances in human-AI interaction paradigms.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Requiring deployment as a condition of measuring AGI introduces nontechnical hurdles such as legal and social considerations, as well as ethical and safety concerns.

    “Requiring deployment as a condition of measuring AGI introduces nontechnical hurdles such as legal and social considerations, as well as ethical and safety concerns.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

    Interpretationcitation

    Knowing when to ask for help is necessary to support alignment and appropriate human-AI interaction.

    “Knowing when to ask for help is necessary to support alignment and appropriate human-AI interaction (Terry et al., 2023)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Terry et al., 2023 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationnone given

    Determining that something is not an AGI at a given level simply requires identifying tasks that people can typically do but the system cannot adequately perform.

    “Determining that something is not an AGI at a given level simply requires identifying tasks that people can typically do but the system cannot adequately perform.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Superhuman systems may be able to perform an even broader generality of tasks than lower levels of AGI.

    “Additionally, this framing also implies that Superhuman systems may be able to perform an even broader generality of tasks than lower levels of AGI, since the ability to execute tasks that qualitatively differ from existing human skills would by definition outperform all humans (who fundamentally cannot do such tasks).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The paper introduced a Levels of AGI ontology, which offers a more nuanced way to define progress toward AGI by considering generality (either Narrow or General) in tandem with five levels of performance (Emerging, Competent, Expert, Exceptional, and Superhuman).

    “With these principles in mind, we introduced our Levels of AGI ontology, which offers a more nuanced way to define progress toward AGI by considering generality (either Narrow or General) in tandem with five levels of performance (Emerging, Competent, Expert, Exceptional, and Superhuman).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationreasoning

    These interaction paradigms in turn introduce new classes of risk.

    “These interaction paradigms in turn introduce new classes of risk.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Interpretationcitation

    The same considerations regarding human vs. computer autonomy apply to AGIs.

    “While Level 5 Self-Driving (SAE International, 2021) vehicles would likely be a Level 4 or 5 Narrow AI under our taxonomy, the same considerations regarding human vs. computer autonomy apply to AGIs.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites SAE International, 2021

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Both generality and performance are key components of AGI.

    “We argue that both generality and performance are key components of AGI.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationnone given

    The "Competent AGI" level best corresponds to many prior conceptions of AGI.

    “The “Competent AGI” level, which has not been achieved by any public systems at the time of writing, best corresponds to many prior conceptions of AGI, and may precipitate rapid societal change once achieved.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    Anthropic's Responsible Scaling Policy uses a levels-based approach inspired by biosafety levels to define the level of risk associated with an AI system, identifying dangerous capabilities per AI Safety Level and containment or deployment measures per level.

    “Concurrent with this work, Anthropic released Version 1.0 of its Responsible Scaling Policy (RSP) (Anthropic, 2023b).This policy uses a levels-based approach (inspired by biosafety levels (Richmond & McKinney, 2009)) to define the level of risk associated with an AI system, identifying what dangerous capabilities may be associated with each AI Safety Level (ASL), and what containment or deployment”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Anthropic, 2023b

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Richmond & McKinney, 2009

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationnone given

    AGI is not necessarily synonymous with autonomy.

    “Notably, we observed that AGI is not necessarily synonymous with autonomy.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationnone given

    Metacognitive capabilities are key prerequisites for systems to achieve generality.

    “On the other hand, metacognitive capabilities (such as the ability to learn new tasks or the ability to know when to ask for clarification or assistance from a human) are key prerequisites for systems to achieve generality.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationreasoning

    For General systems, capability development is likely to be uneven.

    “This discrepancy reflects the fact that for General systems, capability development is likely to be uneven; for example, a Level 1 General AI (”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationnone given

    The role of model building research can be seen as helping systems' capabilities progress along the path to AGI in their performance and generality, such that an AI system's abilities will overlap an increasingly large portion of human abilities.

    “The role of model building research can be seen as helping systems' capabilities progress along the path to AGI in their performance and generality, such that an AI system's abilities will overlap an increasingly large portion of human abilities.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationnone given

    Levels of Autonomy are correlated with Levels of AGI.

    “These Levels of Autonomy are correlated with the Levels of AGI.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    We may develop an AGI, but choose not to deploy it autonomously, or choose to deploy it with differentiated autonomy levels in distinct circumstances as dictated by contextual considerations.

    “We may develop an AGI, but choose not to deploy it autonomously, or choose to deploy it with differentiated autonomy levels in distinct circumstances as dictated by contextual considerations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Increasing capabilities unlock new interaction paradigms, but do not determine them.

    “Increasing capabilities unlock new interaction paradigms, but do not determine them.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationnone given

    This position paper introduces a novel ontology that supports discussing progress toward AGI in a nuanced manner, with the aim of supporting clear communication among researchers, practitioners, and policymakers about systems' capabilities and associated risks.

    “This position paper introduces a novel ontology that supports discussing progress toward AGI in a nuanced manner, with the aim of supporting clear communication among researchers, practitioners, and policymakers about systems' capabilities and associated risks.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Higher levels of autonomy are unlocked by AGI capability progression.

    “Higher levels of autonomy are”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Considering AGI Level jointly with Autonomy Level can provide more nuanced insights into risks associated with AI systems.

    “We illustrated how considering AGI Level jointly with Autonomy Level can provide more nuanced insights into risks associated with AI systems, underscoring the importance of investing in human-AI interaction research in tandem with model improvements.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Lower levels of autonomy may be desirable for particular tasks and contexts even as we reach higher levels of AGI.

    “though lower levels of autonomy may be desirable for particular tasks and contexts even as we reach higher levels of AGI.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationnone given

    The order in which stronger skills in specific cognitive areas are acquired may have serious implications for AI safety.

    “The order in which stronger skills in specific cognitive areas are acquired may have serious implications for AI safety (e.g., acquiring strong knowledge of chemical engineering before acquiring strong ethical reasoning skills may be a dangerous combination).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationnone given

    Unambiguous classification of AI systems will require a standardized benchmark of tasks.

    “Unambiguous classification of AI systems will require a standardized benchmark of tasks, as we discuss in Section 5.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationnone given

    Tasks that can be used to benchmark progress toward AGI are critical to operationalizing any proposed definition.

    “Tasks that can be used to benchmark progress toward AGI are critical to operationalizing any proposed definition.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Certain aspects of generality may be required to make particular interaction paradigms desirable.

    “Certain aspects of generality may be required to make particular interaction paradigms desirable.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationnone given

    The paper's ontology considers how AI capabilities may enable particular interaction paradigms and how the combination of level of autonomy and level of AGI may impact risk.

    “further, our ontology considers how AI capabilities may enable particular interaction paradigms and how the combination of level of autonomy and level of AGI may impact risk.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The interplay of model capabilities and interaction design will enable more nuanced risk assessments and responsible deployment decisions than considering model capabilities alone.

    “The interplay of model capabilities and interaction design will enable more nuanced risk assessments and responsible deployment decisions than considering model capabilities alone.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationnone given

    The "Competent AGI" level may precipitate rapid societal change once achieved.

    “The “Competent AGI” level, which has not been achieved by any public systems at the time of writing, best corresponds to many prior conceptions of AGI, and may precipitate rapid societal change once achieved.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Level 5 General AI ("ASI") systems will be able to do a wide range of tasks at a level that no human can match.

    “This definition means that Level 5 General AI (“ASI”) systems will be able to do a wide range of tasks at a level that no human can match.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
54 of 54

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Modern LLMs pass some framings of the Turing Test.

    “Given that modern LLMs pass some framings of the Turing Test”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The concept of AGI is related to a prediction about progress in AI, namely that it is toward greater generality, approaching and exceeding human generality.

    “The concept of AGI is related to a prediction about progress in AI, namely that it is toward greater generality, approaching and exceeding human generality.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The ability to perform physical tasks increases a system's generality.

    “We suggest that the ability to perform physical tasks increases a system's generality”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The ability of systems to accurately model end-users is a necessary component of alignment for AGI systems.

    “the ability of systems to accurately model end-users is a necessary component of alignment for AGI systems.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    It is impossible to enumerate the full set of tasks achievable by a sufficiently general intelligence.

    “It is impossible to enumerate the full set of tasks achievable by a sufficiently general intelligence.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Broad but imperfect generality is impactful.

    “since it seems clear that broad but imperfect generality is impactful”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Individual humans lack consistent performance across all possible tasks but are generally intelligent.

    “individual humans also lack consistent performance across all possible tasks, but are generally intelligent”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Most dangerous capabilities tend to be dual use.

    “since most such skills tend to be dual use (having valid applications to socially positive scenarios as well as nefarious ones).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Including dangerous capability tests in a public benchmark may allow malicious actors to optimize for these abilities.

    “However, including such tests in a public benchmark may allow malicious actors to optimize for these abilities”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Capabilities provide prerequisites for AI risks.

    “While capabilities provide prerequisites for AI risks, AI systems (including AGI systems) do not and will not operate in a vacuum.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    AI systems, including AGI systems, do not and will not operate in a vacuum; they are deployed with particular interfaces and used to achieve particular tasks in specific scenarios.

    “Rather, AI systems are deployed with particular interfaces and used to achieve particular tasks in specific scenarios.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    System designers and end-users will settle on a mode of human-AI interaction that balances a variety of considerations, including safety.

    “Rather, system designers and end-users will settle on a mode of human-AI interaction (Morris et al., 2023) that balances a variety of considerations, including safety.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    AGI is a concept of both aspirational and practical consequences.

    “Artificial General Intelligence is a concept of both aspirational and practical consequences.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The choice of appropriate autonomy level need not be the maximum achievable given the capabilities of the underlying model.

    “The choice of appropriate autonomy level need not be the maximum achievable given the capabilities of the underlying model.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    One consideration in the choice of autonomy level are resulting risks.

    “One consideration in the choice of autonomy level are resulting risks.”
15 of 15

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Gubrud, M. Nanotechnology and International Security. Fifth Foresight Conference on Molecular Nanotechnology, November 1997.
  2. Legg, S. Machine Super Intelligence. Doctoral Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Informatics of the University of Lugano, June 2008.
  3. McCarthy, J., Minsky, M., Rochester, N., and Shannon, C. A Proposal for The Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence. Dartmouth Workshop, 1955.
  4. Pressley, M., Borkowski, J., and Schneider, W. Cognitive strategies: Good strategy users coordinate metacognition and knowledge. Annals of Child Development, 4:89-129, 1987.
  5. Shah, R., Freire, P., Alex, N., Freedman, R., Krasheninnikov, D., Chan, L., Dennis, M. D., Abbeel, P., Dragan, A., and Russell, S. Benefits of Assistance over Reward Learning, 2021. URL https://openreview.net/forum? id=DFIoGDZejIB.
  6. Shanahan, M. Embodiment and the Inner Life. Oxford University Press, 2010.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Morris, M. R., Sohl-Dickstein, J., Fiedel, N., Warkentin, T., Dafoe, A., Faust, A., Farabet, C., & Legg, S.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2311.02462
arXiv
2311.02462
OpenAlex
W4388481599
Semantic Scholar
c0a822ac56e47b6e4b99d5552d2998647abe8234
Cited by
274
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 74 · 2025: 107 · 2024: 85 · 2023: 8
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
DeepMind
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Psychiatry, Mental Health, Neuroscience
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
artificial general intelligence, AI autonomy, AI risk assessment, human-AI interaction, responsible AI deployment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review