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

71–80 of 104 posts

Re: Road to Artificial General Intelligence

#71

Post by jakeinspace »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #32
jakeinspace wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just curious, is it absolutely necessary that a single model can solve all these problems to satisfy you? As long as it’s a finite and relatively small list, why not allow for N models boxed together wrapped in a switch statement? Or if you’re picky, a top-level language model which tries to decide which of its subsystems to employ for the problem at hand. After all, the human brain is at least somewhat partitioned (…

It wouldn't even have to be a language model, just some sort of meta program that handled the switchboarding, as it were, between subsystems would be enough. But my real point is just more narrow, you can't measure progress to artificial general intelligence with a list of tasks satisfied by artificial specific intelligence. You have to measure the generalness directly. And thats also why I don't think you'd have to…

It’s very difficult to come up with an objective metric or benchmark for general AI that can’t be gamed, or which won’t turn out to be disappointingly easy. It makes sense that most research would be in the direction of tasks which are easily quantifiable. More hazy benchmarks like the Turing test are possibly better but that one in particular isn’t so good unless it’s enhanced (I’d say a 1 hour conversation with an AI posing as someone with graduate-student level understanding of a field of science or art I know something about would be adequate proof, but maybe I’m being naive).

Re: Road to Artificial General Intelligence

#72

Post by thefaux »

jjcon wrote: post #52
p-e-w wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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.

Every day we are confronted with rather obvious nondeterminism that seems to originate in consciousness and has no scientific explanation that I'm aware of. It is undeniable that physical reality is affected by decisions made by conscious agents. Here's a simple example: say that we are trying to predict the position of a cell in a human body. It's motion is surely governed by a host of physical and chemical reactions, that can be described microscopically, but where that cell is in five minutes cannot possibly be described solely by those microscopic laws. The human may decide to get up and walk to the other side of the room. I am not personally convinced that the decisions to get up and move are the deterministic result of physical laws that follow directly from the initial conditions at the big bang. If there were some compelling scientific theory that could actually explain a theory of consciousness that was consistent with subjective experience and didn't hand wave it away as an emergent phenomenon, I'd be open to it. You are making a very bold claim when you state we are "just" physical and chemical reactions that I don't think is fully justified in light of the limitations of existing scientific theories.

Re: Road to Artificial General Intelligence

#73

Post by ethanwillis »

jjcon wrote: post #52
p-e-w wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The behaviors are in fact pre-programmed. The distinction between environment and agent is in my opinion an un-necessary and misleading one. The agent is at is and the agent "acts" as it acts as a union with its environment.

Re: Road to Artificial General Intelligence

#74

Post by Diapason »

huitzitziltzin wrote: post #13

> AI creates a (crypto)currency that has USD $1M+ market capitalization (at 2022 adjusted value) for more than 6 months Is this a sign that the AI has succeeded at becoming intelligent or failed? I don’t think any of the cryptocurrency milestones are plausible signs of progress. Surely GPT could have generated some preposterous “white paper” circa 2021 and with a little help achieved that.

One of the most fascinating short stories on the topic:

https://www.marketingfirst.co.nz/storage/2018/06/prelude-lif...

The whole book is great as well.

Re: Road to Artificial General Intelligence

#75

Post by ly3xqhl8g9 »

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…

If consciousness is 'only' the act of reading the memory of the past ~500 milliseconds [1] coupled with the act of integrating that memory in the past short/long-term memory [2] obtaining 'artificial consciousness' after you have adequate sensors and data processing pipelines could be as simple as an endless loop over the incoming data stream. The problem is that our $x+ trillion datacenters are less able to process data, and adapt to environment feedback, than a 'banal' single cell lacrymaria [3] [4].

[1] Around N400 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N400_(neuroscience)

[2] Consciousness as a Memory System https://journals.lww.com/cogbehavneurol/Fulltext/9900/Consci...

[3] Michael Levin | Cell Intelligence in Physiological & Morphological Spaces https://youtu.be/TK2o_ObVt-E?t=3922

[4] Michael Levin: "Non-neural, developmental bioelectricity as a precursor for cognition" https://youtu.be/3Cu-g4LgnWs?t=776

Re: Road to Artificial General Intelligence

#77

Post by Vetch »

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.

> AGI does not mean “human level.”

The term general intelligence is ambiguous and will mean different things to different people. My understanding of the term AGI is it was coined to differentiate from narrow AI, which AI had diluted over time to mean.

AGI is AI broad and deep enough to be able to learn and perform any task a human can and is at least within the range of top human performers.

The wikipedia definition seems to agree:

> Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is the ability of an intelligent agent to understand or learn any intellectual task that a human being can

Re: Road to Artificial General Intelligence

#78

Post by ly3xqhl8g9 »

ethanwillis wrote: post #70
ly3xqhl8g9 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is "feels" and what is "the need"? Does a virus, biochemical or digital, also "feels the need to survive"? And also, why would an AGI care about survival? Perhaps a higher intelligence than ours will contemplate how doomed the planet is, being evaporated by the sun in circa 5 billion years [1], and how doomed the universe is, being evaporated by proton decay(?) in 10^100 years [2], and once the AGI internalizes…

This is extremely defeatist. If you're worried only about such things then of course the present and even short term future can't be enjoyed. Why does a goal in the far future matter more than a goal in the immediate future? (that isn't the heat death of the universe)

The point is that humans are not AGI and we don't know what would an AGI "feel" just as much as an ant has no way of knowing what a human "feels" when listening to an EDM remix of Chopin (excitement or sheer hatred?). But, yes, I do find funny the idea of the depressed AGI, thinking of Marvin the Paranoid Android [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_the_Paranoid_Android

Re: Road to Artificial General Intelligence

#79

Post by ImHereToVote »

wyldfire wrote: post #35
baxtr wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting thought. Could we please add “within the limits of law”?

> Could we please add “within the limits of law”? But which jurisdiction applies to the AGI? And how should it interpret the written law + precedent? Maybe to make things simpler we could give broad directives that might accomplish your goal. I can think of three: (1) the AGI may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, (2) the AGI must obey orders given it by human beings e…

The problem is how loosely or tightly the parameters are set.

Too tight: all actions lead to at least one person getting injured in the far future.

Too loose: some portions of the demographic are expendable to achieve the goal.

Re: Road to Artificial General Intelligence

#80

Post by celdon25 »

I wish authors like these would put a bit more effort and research into these posts. There's a big gap between something being clickbait and something being worthy of the title heading they dared to slap on it. This post probably harmed AGI research more than it helped.

The author shows profound naivety by listing these in supposed "progressive difficulty" order, without evidence of such, all the while proclaiming that such a list is more important than the AGI itself. And I'm curious about why this was decided to be published in groups that are known for readers that are AGI-aware but AGI-laymen nonetheless. It's wonderful that more people are reading about AGI in 2022. Great stuff. But please don't waste those gains on this drivel.

If you want to read about AGI, there are better places for that: http://agi-conf.org/2022/accepted-papers/

Post reply on HN