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

What Is AGI-Hard

lspace.swyx.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 129 posts

Re: What Is AGI-Hard

#51

Post by [deleted] »

AstralStorm wrote: post #46
VCBullshitter wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this just an echo of computationally? Why involve the distraction of intelligence at all when what you're discussing is a computable algorithm with known bounds? Is there anything special about intelligence—Penrose's bullshit[0] aside—that can't be computed? If not is it anything other than a marketing term for computation that seems more "advanced" to humans? [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_…

Yes, intelligence is the ability for a small finite system to deal with infinity of possibilities in a successful way. No matter how big computationally the AI is, the test was always trying to deal with something new, outside its comfort zone. Preferably as far outside it as possible. To do that successfully requires general problem solving and abstraction skills. Of course one can do better or worse at that, includ…

[deleted]

Re: What Is AGI-Hard

#52

Post by dbspin »

TacticalCoder wrote: post #50
albertzeyer wrote: post #42

As LeCun always says: The term "AGI" is a bit ill-formed. What does "general" really mean? Human intelligence is not really general. It's actually very very specialized towards the world we live in. So he prefers the term "human-level intelligence", or maybe super-human-level at some point. Another implication: It's not really a yes/no property, whether you have AGI or not. It's a level of intelligence. And this leve…

> What does human-level intelligence mean? What about a simple test: it means being able to create better versions of ChatGPT and StableDiffusion. Can an AI create a better version of itself, all by itself? Because humans are going to create better versions of ChatGPT. So no matter the exact definition of "intelligence" or "human intelligence", the goal is simple: create a better version of itself and it'll be consid…

> What about a simple test: it means being able to create better versions of ChatGPT and StableDiffusion.

This doesn't follow at all. An ant will haphazardly create a better (fitter) version of an ant simply through breeding and natural selection. Meanwhile humans cannot intentionally create 'better versions' of humans (with any degree of reliability for a given selection criteria).

There's no intelligence on earth (arguably including humans) whose goal is 'to create a better version of itself'. The goal for lifeforms is reproduction, specifically at the levels of gene and individual selection. Increases in fitness are due to the process of the environment shaping the adaptation.

So it follows that while a future GPT might well be able to duplicate or improve itself, that wouldn't directly reflect its intelligence in comparison to living intelligences. Nor would it necessarily generalise beyond domain specificity.

Re: What Is AGI-Hard

#53

Post by VCBullshitter »

mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote: post #47
swyx wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

chess as a closed system is definitely solved by AI, including bootstrapping purely from self-play. the claim here is that applying physics/math/etc would be AGI-hard, because it involves the AI perfectly modeling a world it doesnt live in (the simulation problem) or understanding relationships in concepts without making jumps (obeying logic).

Small nitpick: in game theory, "solved" means something very specific. At the very weakest it requires the ability to prove what the result of a game will be from the initial position given perfect play. Chess AI is nowhere close to this. They easily beat humans, yes, but in the game-theoretic sense chess is not solved.

I mean if they were talking about "solved" I'd assume they'd just use a decision tree rather than refer to AI at all, so given the rest of the comment I assumed they were talking about beating humans 100% of the time rather than beating an arbitrary agent 100% of the time (or I guess 50% if you can't pick which color).

Re: What Is AGI-Hard

#54

Post by [deleted] »

fnfontana wrote: post #48
albertzeyer wrote: post #42

As LeCun always says: The term "AGI" is a bit ill-formed. What does "general" really mean? Human intelligence is not really general. It's actually very very specialized towards the world we live in. So he prefers the term "human-level intelligence", or maybe super-human-level at some point. Another implication: It's not really a yes/no property, whether you have AGI or not. It's a level of intelligence. And this leve…

Indeed. A person can be bad at math, but really good on play musical instruments or to guide himself through a unknown city. That requires a certain level of intelligence. But I think there's no human that is intelligent on every aspect, maybe some exceptions like Da Vinci, but most people are good at some tasks while other people doesn't. The human intelligence seems to be distributed throughout the population. This…

[deleted]

Re: What Is AGI-Hard

#55

Post by dbspin »

fartsucker69 wrote: post #49
albertzeyer wrote: post #42

As LeCun always says: The term "AGI" is a bit ill-formed. What does "general" really mean? Human intelligence is not really general. It's actually very very specialized towards the world we live in. So he prefers the term "human-level intelligence", or maybe super-human-level at some point. Another implication: It's not really a yes/no property, whether you have AGI or not. It's a level of intelligence. And this leve…

It's totally general in the sense that we can logically approach arbitrary problem types and there is nothing known that we can't approach with our tools of intelligence, so to speak. That doesn't necessarily mean that we are actually good at solving those problems or that there isn't an upper level of difficulty that we will just not be able to solve practically, but we are definitely able to approach all classes of…

> there is nothing known that we can't approach with our tools of intelligence, so to speak.

Such things may necessarily be unknowable. If there are classes of observations that we are unable to make, or problems that we are unable to comprehend, its absolutely plausible that they would be cognitive blindspots.

In fact there's a whole theoretical strand in cognitive science / ontology that suggests this. We perceive and act only against a model of the world tuned for fitness rather than accuracy. i.e.: we are not perceiving objective reality at any scale, but rather a mental representation of it which is tailored to fitness. This is deeply unintuitive, but of course it would be since it relates to the limits on our ability to intuit.

Re: What Is AGI-Hard

#56

Post by notahacker »

fnfontana wrote: post #48
albertzeyer wrote: post #42

As LeCun always says: The term "AGI" is a bit ill-formed. What does "general" really mean? Human intelligence is not really general. It's actually very very specialized towards the world we live in. So he prefers the term "human-level intelligence", or maybe super-human-level at some point. Another implication: It's not really a yes/no property, whether you have AGI or not. It's a level of intelligence. And this leve…

Indeed. A person can be bad at math, but really good on play musical instruments or to guide himself through a unknown city. That requires a certain level of intelligence. But I think there's no human that is intelligent on every aspect, maybe some exceptions like Da Vinci, but most people are good at some tasks while other people doesn't. The human intelligence seems to be distributed throughout the population. This…

But there's no such thing as.a person who is flawless at maths but has no concept of a musical instrument or navigating a city, or moving their limbs, or communicating, or eating, or setting itself any goals, or achieving any goals other than answer the math question.

General intelligence isn't a claim that all humans are polymaths. It's a claim that AIs are so overfitted to succeeding in one narrow human domain like rearranging ASCII strings they fail to achieve infant-level (or even worm-level) competence in virtually all others, and that it responds to new situations by assuming they're an instance of what it has been trained to do rather than considering different approaches.

Re: What Is AGI-Hard

#57

Post by Retric »

dbspin wrote: post #52
TacticalCoder wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What does human-level intelligence mean? What about a simple test: it means being able to create better versions of ChatGPT and StableDiffusion. Can an AI create a better version of itself, all by itself? Because humans are going to create better versions of ChatGPT. So no matter the exact definition of "intelligence" or "human intelligence", the goal is simple: create a better version of itself and it'll be consid…

> What about a simple test: it means being able to create better versions of ChatGPT and StableDiffusion. This doesn't follow at all. An ant will haphazardly create a better (fitter) version of an ant simply through breeding and natural selection. Meanwhile humans cannot intentionally create 'better versions' of humans (with any degree of reliability for a given selection criteria). There's no intelligence on earth (…

Humanity has developed technology to improve humanity. Glasses correct issues, and microscopes added new capacity.

We haven’t gone down the genetic engineering path but we could fix issues with our DNA.

Re: What Is AGI-Hard

#58

Post by bmitc »

albertzeyer wrote: post #42

As LeCun always says: The term "AGI" is a bit ill-formed. What does "general" really mean? Human intelligence is not really general. It's actually very very specialized towards the world we live in. So he prefers the term "human-level intelligence", or maybe super-human-level at some point. Another implication: It's not really a yes/no property, whether you have AGI or not. It's a level of intelligence. And this leve…

> As LeCun always says: The term "AGI" is a bit ill-formed. What does "general" really mean? Human intelligence is not really general. It's actually very very specialized towards the world we live in. So he prefers the term "human-level intelligence", or maybe super-human-level at some point.

That’s kind of a silly semantic argument though. It also assumes that everyone interested in AGI is trying to make “human-level” intelligence.

So my argument would be that:

* not everyone interested in AGI is interested in replicating human intelligence,

* human-level intelligence is undefined,

* there’s an implicit assumption by your paraphrasing (quoting?) of LeCun that assumes human intelligence is the most general we know of, which is something we don’t have the ability to know.

So I think AGI is fine unless you’re explicitly trying to mimic human intelligence.

Re: What Is AGI-Hard

#59

Post by albertzeyer »

TacticalCoder wrote: post #50
albertzeyer wrote: post #42

As LeCun always says: The term "AGI" is a bit ill-formed. What does "general" really mean? Human intelligence is not really general. It's actually very very specialized towards the world we live in. So he prefers the term "human-level intelligence", or maybe super-human-level at some point. Another implication: It's not really a yes/no property, whether you have AGI or not. It's a level of intelligence. And this leve…

> What does human-level intelligence mean? What about a simple test: it means being able to create better versions of ChatGPT and StableDiffusion. Can an AI create a better version of itself, all by itself? Because humans are going to create better versions of ChatGPT. So no matter the exact definition of "intelligence" or "human intelligence", the goal is simple: create a better version of itself and it'll be consid…

So, most humans are not intelligent then? Because I don't think that an average human can create a better version of ChatGPT / StableDiffusion. Or a better version of itself, if that is the baseline. Or do you count evolution here? But evolution does not necessarily lead to higher intelligence.

But also: Once you have some model or algorithm for intelligence, where you just need to scale up the size / training data, is it really such a big intellectual accomplishment to just scale it up?

But what exactly is your definition of AGI or AGI-hard now? That something can improve itself? But what does that mean? Does a std::vector count, as it can resize itself when it needs more memory? Or wide set of intelligence tests?

So, is ChatGPT then already human-level intelligent? You can ask it how to improve itself. I'm sure the answers it will give will actually improve it.

Re: What Is AGI-Hard

#60

Post by bmitc »

Retric wrote: post #57
dbspin wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What about a simple test: it means being able to create better versions of ChatGPT and StableDiffusion. This doesn't follow at all. An ant will haphazardly create a better (fitter) version of an ant simply through breeding and natural selection. Meanwhile humans cannot intentionally create 'better versions' of humans (with any degree of reliability for a given selection criteria). There's no intelligence on earth (…

Humanity has developed technology to improve humanity. Glasses correct issues, and microscopes added new capacity. We haven’t gone down the genetic engineering path but we could fix issues with our DNA.

> Humanity has developed technology to improve humanity.

I would argue that the vast majority of technology has hurt humanity and that a large proportion of technology is simply solving problems caused by other technology.

Post reply on HN