Live data from Hacker News

DeepMind: A Generalist Agent

deepmind.com

121–130 of 345 posts

Re: DeepMind: A Generalist Agent

#121

given that the same model can both: 1. tell me about a cat (given a prompt such as "describe a cat to me") 2. recognize a cat in a photo, and describe the cat in the photo does the model understand that a cat that it sees in an image is related to a cat that it can describe in natural language? As in, are these two tasks (captioning an image and replying to a natural language prompt) so distinct that a "cat" in an im…

I think the critical question here is does it have a concept of cattyness? This to me is the crux of a AGI: can it generalise concepts across domains?

Moreover, can it relate non-cat but cat-like objects to it's concept of cattyness? As in, this is like a cat because it has whiskers and pointy ears, but is not like a cat because all cats I know about are bigger than 10cm long. It also doesn't have much in the way of mouseyness: it's aspect ratio seems wrong.

Re: DeepMind: A Generalist Agent

#122
post #117
post #22

Slowly but surely we're moving towards general AI. There is a marked split across general society and even ML/AI specialists between those who think that we can achieve AGI using current methods and those who dismiss the possibility. This has always been the case, but what is remarkable about today's environment is that researchers keep making progress contrary to the doubter's predictions. Each time this happens, th…

>- "ML models can't perform creative work" - then came GANs, large language models, DALL-E, and more. I don't think copying other people's style of artwork is considered creative work, otherwise art forgers would be able to actually make a living doing art, since some of them are really phenomenal.

Good artists borrow, great artists steal.

Re: DeepMind: A Generalist Agent

#123
post #115

Before you visualize a straight path between "a bag of cool ML tricks" and "general AI", try to imagine superintelligence but without consciousness. You might then realize that there is no obvious mechanism which requires the two to appear or evolve together. It's a curious concept, well illustrated in the novel Blindsight by Peter Watts. I won't spoil anything here but I'll highly recommend the book.

What's the difference between intelligence and consciousness? Could a human be intelligent while not conscious?

Re: DeepMind: A Generalist Agent

#124
post #115

Before you visualize a straight path between "a bag of cool ML tricks" and "general AI", try to imagine superintelligence but without consciousness. You might then realize that there is no obvious mechanism which requires the two to appear or evolve together. It's a curious concept, well illustrated in the novel Blindsight by Peter Watts. I won't spoil anything here but I'll highly recommend the book.

First you have to define consciousness, and especially the external difference between a conscious and non-conscious intelligence.

Re: DeepMind: A Generalist Agent

#125
post #22

Slowly but surely we're moving towards general AI. There is a marked split across general society and even ML/AI specialists between those who think that we can achieve AGI using current methods and those who dismiss the possibility. This has always been the case, but what is remarkable about today's environment is that researchers keep making progress contrary to the doubter's predictions. Each time this happens, th…

I have been impressed with what I've seen in the last six months but it still seems that GPT-3 and similar language models greatest talent is fooling people. The other day I prompted a language model with "The S-300 missile system is" and got something that was grammatical but mostly wrong: the S-300 missile system was not only capable of shooting down aircraft and missiles (which it is), but it was also good for sho…

Do you think that is a solvable problem with tweaks to the current training model? Or requires a fundamentally different approach?

Re: DeepMind: A Generalist Agent

#126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There it is. The person who think human minds are python programs doing linear algebra.

There's no evidence otherwise. You have to believe that the mind has a materialist basis or else you believe in woo woo magic.

sure, but I think it's fair to say that brains probably aren't doing lballistics calculations when a baseball player sees a pop fly and manveuvers to catch it. Rather, brains, composed mainly of neurons and other essential components, approximate partial differential equations, much like machine learning systems do.

Re: DeepMind: A Generalist Agent

#127
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a world where AI is indistinguishable, or far superior, to human intelligence I think the part about being "indistinguishable from human intelligence" is potentially a intellectual trap. We might get to it being far superior while still underperforming at some tasks or behaving in ways that don't make sense to a human mind. An AI mind will highly likely work completely differently from humans and communicating with…

You're right. I didn't word that very well. Human intelligence vs. AI will always have different qualities as long as one is biological vs. silicon based. I still think we'll be surprised how quickly AI can catches up to human performance on most tasks that comprise modern jobs.

I think your wording was fine. My point was more to expand on yours of us getting surprised by progress. In fact, wet might have GAI long before we understand what we have because the AI is so foreign to us. In some way we might be building the big pudding from Solaris.

Re: DeepMind: A Generalist Agent

#128
post #22

Slowly but surely we're moving towards general AI. There is a marked split across general society and even ML/AI specialists between those who think that we can achieve AGI using current methods and those who dismiss the possibility. This has always been the case, but what is remarkable about today's environment is that researchers keep making progress contrary to the doubter's predictions. Each time this happens, th…

I don’t know if we could sufficiently prepare ourselves for such a world. It would seem almost as if we have to build it first so it could determine the best way to prepare us.

Maybe we could train a model to tell us the best way to prepare.

Re: DeepMind: A Generalist Agent

#129
post #22

Slowly but surely we're moving towards general AI. There is a marked split across general society and even ML/AI specialists between those who think that we can achieve AGI using current methods and those who dismiss the possibility. This has always been the case, but what is remarkable about today's environment is that researchers keep making progress contrary to the doubter's predictions. Each time this happens, th…

>Each time this happens, the AGI pessimists raise the bar (a little) for what constitutes AGI. Why does this need to be repeated in every discussion about AI? It’s tired.

Because some people inevitably respond in a way that indicates they’ve never heard it before.

Re: DeepMind: A Generalist Agent

#130
post #22

Slowly but surely we're moving towards general AI. There is a marked split across general society and even ML/AI specialists between those who think that we can achieve AGI using current methods and those who dismiss the possibility. This has always been the case, but what is remarkable about today's environment is that researchers keep making progress contrary to the doubter's predictions. Each time this happens, th…

I think a key problem is our understanding of the quality of an ML system is tied to a task. Our mechanism of training is tied to a loss, or some optimization problem. The design, training, and evaluation of these systems is dependent on an externally provided definition of "correct".

But this seems structurally different from how we or even less intelligent animals operate. DALL-E may make "better" art than most humans -- but it does so in response to a human-provided prompt, according to a system trained on human produced or selected images, improving on an externally-provided loss. Whereas a human artist, even if mediocre, is directed by their own interests and judges according to their own aesthetics. Even if some of their outputs are sometimes comparable, they're not really engaged in the same activity.

Methodologically, how do we create agents that aren't just good at several tasks, but make up their own tasks, "play", develop changing preferences for different activities (I think this is more than just "exploration"), etc? Even a dog sometimes wants to play with a toy, sometimes wants to run and chase, sometimes wants to be warm inside. We don't "score" how well it plays with a toy, but we take its desire to play as a signs of greater intelligence than, e.g. a pet iguana which doesn't seem to have such a desire.

Further, how do we create agents that can learn without ever seriously failing? RL systems have many episodes, some of which can end very badly (e.g. your simulated runner falls off the world) and they get to learn from this. We die exactly once, and we don't get to learn from it. Note, learning from others in a social context may be part of it, but non-social animals also can learn to avoid many kinds of serious harm without first experiencing it.

I don't mean to overly discount the current methods -- they're achieving amazing results. But I think even an optimist should be open to the possibility / opportunity that perhaps the current techniques will get us 80% of the way there, but that there are still some important tricks to be discovered.

Post reply on HN