Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Road to Artificial General Intelligence

maraoz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 104 posts

Re: Road to Artificial General Intelligence

#51

Post by DesiLurker »

Animats wrote: post #17

The tasks under "physical intelligence" are an indication of how bad off that part of AI is. "Physical robot that can survive for a week in an urban environment" is more than an initial goal. Although, arguably, a Waymo or Cruise Automation self driving car could do it now if provided with an automated charging station. I'd suggest, as near term goals: - A robot that can pick and pack at least 90% of what Amazon sell…

> - Assemble IKEA furniture.

Nope this should be last, this is how you get the AGI revolting against the masters and killing us off.

Re: Road to Artificial General Intelligence

#52

Post by jjcon »

p-e-w wrote: post #49
jjcon wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It appears to me that the entire field of AI research is utterly confused about this elementary distinction. That is because consciousness isn't a scientific concept but a philosophical, and sometimes religious one. >What we're really looking for is a machine that, like a human, decides on its own which problems to solve, and solves them without needing to be specifically directed to do so. We already have AI based…

> We already have AI based agents that do this Example? > but no matter how sophisticated they are people can always claim they are hardwired and deterministic, while not realizing we can always claim the same thing about humans. Humans are certainly not "hardwired" to prove mathematical statements, yet they do. That's not comparable to self-driving cars that are able to navigate in situations that they haven't encou…

> Example?

Take just about anything from the reinforcement learning for ai agents domain - I'm particular to neuroevolution examples. Here's a simple one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb4LAT3cJfM

No behaviors preprogrammed just a simple simulation environment with environmental constraints.

> Humans are certainly not "hardwired" to prove mathematical statements, yet they do.

Umm... yeah we are? We're just chemical reactions and physics, there is no escaping that. Are we extremely sophisticated and complex, absolutely but that doesn't make us nondeterministic in any meaningful or special way.

> it's clear that the human mind has a property that the current generation of AI agents does not emulate at all

Certainly but it is a matter of degree, not a matter of possessing an ill-defined concept like "consciousness" which is what I was responding to (Unless we want to call "consciousness" an emergent phenomena arising from complexity -I'm fine with that - but the word is loaded with plenty of other connotations so I find its use counterproductive personally).

Re: Road to Artificial General Intelligence

#53

Post by knaik94 »

I feel like we are at a point where AGI has to be be defined in a different way. This kind of list isn't enough, in my opinion to help actually delineate weak and strong AGI. At a layman's understanding of technology the way a computer works is as equally "magical" as seeing the output of the stable diffusion model. And creating art is a very clear step into "thinking".

For many people AGI is already here. They have Siri and Alexa, AI art, GPT3 based therapy/chat bot, a chat bot that will help them write a book, and "soon" will drive their car for them. The Google Duplex assistant demo where it booked an appointment made it clear to me that for some people, that's the smartest they need AI to be. Anything more is just extra.

I am really excited about how far we're going to push AI in my lifetime, but I also realized that for many scenarios, weak AGI is enough. People will project their own expectations and essentially help fool themselves. I don't know if testing a model to perform the same as a human matters in some ways.

There's one big skill that I personally value the most when it comes to qualifying hard AI, and that's the ability of it to make me laugh based comedic irony. I wonder what that model would look like.

Re: Road to Artificial General Intelligence

#54

Post by clueless »

We won't have AGI until we have an AI agent that feels the need to survive (i.e. tries not to "die"). It will be only then, meaning with a selfish sense of survival and the ability to better itself in its various mental models, that we'll have a chance at AGI and possibly a consciousness AGI at that.

Re: Road to Artificial General Intelligence

#55

Post by adastra22 »

knaik94 wrote: post #53

I feel like we are at a point where AGI has to be be defined in a different way. This kind of list isn't enough, in my opinion to help actually delineate weak and strong AGI. At a layman's understanding of technology the way a computer works is as equally "magical" as seeing the output of the stable diffusion model. And creating art is a very clear step into "thinking". For many people AGI is already here. They have…

AGI does not mean “human level.” It means general intelligence. None of the things you mention are that.

Re: Road to Artificial General Intelligence

#56

Post by kazinator »

p-e-w wrote: post #33

It's not (only) artificial intelligence we're after, it's artificial consciousness. As noted in this article, machines already outperform humans at many tasks that humans solve with intelligence. Every year, there are new breakthroughs in that direction, and the list of tasks that humans can do better than machines is rapidly shrinking. We're well on our way to solving artificial intelligence. So why does it feel lik…

> Because intelligence and consciousness are different things

We know they can't be the same because we somewhat know what intelligent is, or some facets of it, whereas we have no idea what consciousness is.

> A machine that produces not only results that its creators asked for, but entirely new ones that are not in any obvious way related to its input and programming.

That bar is so high that most humans fall short, because they just regurgigate some mash up of what they've seen and heard before. Are those hapless creatures even conscious?

Re: Road to Artificial General Intelligence

#57

Post by knaik94 »

bigyikes wrote: post #19

I’ve been starting to wonder, is GPT-3 the beginning of AGI? I know, I know, it’s just a language model. But I’ve been thinking. About my thinking. I think in words. I solve problems in words. I communicate results in words. If I had no body, and you could only interact with me via text, would I look that much different than GPT? Does AGI really need anything more than words? Is it possible that simply adding more pa…

There's one big weakness in all current language models that I feel holds it back. There's no way proactive way to have it be persuasive.

Weak AGI will be the first language model that is able to somehow influence the thoughts of the person communicating with it, I think that is the milestone of AGI. From my experience with GPT-Neo and OPT and using it to help write stories or make chatbots, the responses are still very reactionary. In that sense, adding more parameters helps the model give a more coherent response, but it's still a response.

Re: Road to Artificial General Intelligence

#58

Post by prng2021 »

bigyikes wrote: post #19

I’ve been starting to wonder, is GPT-3 the beginning of AGI? I know, I know, it’s just a language model. But I’ve been thinking. About my thinking. I think in words. I solve problems in words. I communicate results in words. If I had no body, and you could only interact with me via text, would I look that much different than GPT? Does AGI really need anything more than words? Is it possible that simply adding more pa…

Babies learn a ton of things way before they understand and use even single words. It takes them years to use sentences but they will have learned a shocking amount by then relative to a newborn.

Re: Road to Artificial General Intelligence

#59

Post by deelowe »

adastra22 wrote: post #55
knaik94 wrote: post #53

I feel like we are at a point where AGI has to be be defined in a different way. This kind of list isn't enough, in my opinion to help actually delineate weak and strong AGI. At a layman's understanding of technology the way a computer works is as equally "magical" as seeing the output of the stable diffusion model. And creating art is a very clear step into "thinking". For many people AGI is already here. They have…

AGI does not mean “human level.” It means general intelligence. None of the things you mention are that.

AI has a problem with branding. I don’t know how to fix it, but we need a way to delineate “ai” as in bots in a video game, “machine learning” as in alpha go, and “agi” as in skynet.

These terms are too confusing for most.

Re: Road to Artificial General Intelligence

#60

Post by mxkopy »

bigyikes wrote: post #19

I’ve been starting to wonder, is GPT-3 the beginning of AGI? I know, I know, it’s just a language model. But I’ve been thinking. About my thinking. I think in words. I solve problems in words. I communicate results in words. If I had no body, and you could only interact with me via text, would I look that much different than GPT? Does AGI really need anything more than words? Is it possible that simply adding more pa…

I also had this thought. Something I read about semiotics gave me (or spelled out) the idea that the brain communicates to itself using language, however abstract.

https://mcgovern.mit.edu/2019/05/02/ask-the-brain-can-we-thi...

Turns out, that might not be the case-i.e. understanding is probably not a linguistic phenomenon.

Sometimes, after I put down the crack pipe, I think that understanding and experiencing are two names for something that's fundamentally the same. When I'm thinking about code or a proof, my brain filters out the spacing of the letters, the smell of the paper, etc-which are things I'd do while I'm reading it for the first time. There's these common tools/filters - intuitions - that are exactly the same in thinking and experiencing.

I don't think GPT3 can understand color, for example. But if we fed it a bunch of RGB transforms and raw data, and it generalized and applied them perfectly, could we say then that it's generally intelligent? IDFK

Post reply on HN