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

91–100 of 129 posts

Re: What Is AGI-Hard

#91

Post by ElectricalUnion »

dontreact wrote: post #83
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…

In normal situations you don't need speech recognition, but to drive as well as a human in all possible situations you do. What if there is an emergency and there is a loudspeaker giving drivers instructions on how to turn around?

I don't think it's a desirable trait for a "smart car" to accept arbitrary loudspeaker drive instructions and override your explicit commands.

"For the next 12 miles, please drive on the opposite lane of the motorway due to a motorcycle accident" next level prank.

Re: What Is AGI-Hard

#92

Post by MichaelRazum »

tgv wrote: post #68
MichaelRazum wrote: post #33

Isn't AGI-Hard everything that seems rather simple for animals? I would think just of robotics and navigation in unknown environment. Everything else like Chess, Text, Art, Games seems to be solvable by current AI systems. Robotics seems much much more difficult.

Chess and other games are solved, because they use well-defined rules, and have a combinatorial explosion that we cannot comprehend. Text and art are not solved. What would solved even mean for those? There are NNs which produce decent output given a simple prompt, but e.g. art is characterized to a large extent by development over time. Stable Diffusion isn't going to develop by itself. Robotics OTOH is much simpler…

Agree, solved is not well defined. Let's just say it becomes hard to distinguish it from a human.

For robotics, I just think of a "simple" tasks like picking up an object and moving it to some place. Haven't seen yet something like this in robotics, that looks human or animal like.

Re: What Is AGI-Hard

#93

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

>> Software engineers and computer scientists already have a tool for understanding the limits of infinite spaces - the P vs NP problem - as well as an accepted wisdom that there is a known area of algorithm research that is too unrealistic to be productive, because working on it would be functionally equivalent to proving P = NP.

Not to be contrary, but P ≠ NP is only conjectured and some computer scientists do indeed expect that a proof of P = NP will eventually be demonstrated.

Not me, actually, but for example a computer science author called Donald Knuth [1] thinks that P = NP and that a proof will eventually become known but even so it's not going to be terribly useful to anyone:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDTOs8MgQfg

______

[1] Yes I know. But just in case.

Re: What Is AGI-Hard

#94

Post by mannykannot »

kordlessagain wrote: post #86
mannykannot wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LLMs have not 'solved' either language or common sense. They will unknowingly and quite blatantly contradict themselves, for instance.

That's only because memories haven't been fully developed for AI, yet. Most LLM examples don't know what they said in response to input from yesterday, much less from 5 minutes ago. Additionally, without a construct, like a body, in which to store these memories, AGI will continue to disappoint those who do.

You can propose the premise of your first paragraph, but it is not an established fact.

As ChatGPT can contradict itself within a single reply, I doubt that this is the only issue.

Re: What Is AGI-Hard

#95

Post by ElectricalUnion »

notahacker wrote: post #87
Animats wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This article is a bit too hand-wavy for my taste. From the article: "I think this is the sort of debate that makes good podcast fodder". So the article author admits that. It's hand-wavy on vision. Parts of vision are not "AGI-hard". A key component of self-driving is something that can determine whether a volume of space is empty, occupied, or ambiguous. It's necessary to have something that does not report "empty…

> of vision are not "AGI-hard". A key component of self-driving is something that can determine whether a volume of space is empty, occupied, or ambiguous. It's necessary to have something that does not report "empty" for occupied areas, and has a reasonably high accuracy rate on not emitting false reports of "occupied". There are sensor suites which can do that. LIDAR can do that. If you have data from a few viewpoi…

>> of vision are not "AGI-hard". A key component of self-driving is something that can determine whether a volume of space is empty, occupied, or ambiguous.

> Isn't the latter part of vision the part that's "AGI" hard though

Those accidents with self driving where they ram stationary objects at full speed because they cheaped out on LIDARs and only have visual feeds shows that visuo-spatial ability seems to be AGI-hard.

Re: What Is AGI-Hard

#96

Post by xeyownt »

Weird article. After reading most of it, I still don't know what AGI or AGI-hard is.

Going to feed it into ChatGPT and have it explain to me...

Re: What Is AGI-Hard

#97

Post by xeyownt »

xeyownt wrote: post #96

Weird article. After reading most of it, I still don't know what AGI or AGI-hard is. Going to feed it into ChatGPT and have it explain to me...

The query:

Hello ! I'm going to paste below a copy of a blog post on "AGI", which I don't get at all. Could you help me understand it, and/or possibly rewrite it in a way that would make it clearer or easier to understand.

Here the copy-pasted article:

The answer:

The author of this blog post is discussing the concept of artificial general intelligence (AGI), which is often described as the hypothetical future ability of artificial intelligence (AI) to understand or learn any intellectual task that a human being can. The author notes that it is difficult to have a meaningful conversation about the potential for AI to perform various tasks because the definition of AI is so broad and vague, and because it is difficult to distinguish between realistic and unrealistic predictions about what AI might be able to achieve. The author suggests that the concept of "NP-hard" problems, which refers to a class of problems in computer science that are difficult to solve and may require a very long time to complete, could be a useful way to frame discussions about the limits of AI and what it might be able to achieve. The author also discusses the importance of considering the social and ethical implications of AI, and the need to be cautious about hype and over-exaggeration in discussions about the potential of AI.

Re: What Is AGI-Hard

#98

Post by xeyownt »

xeyownt wrote: post #96

Weird article. After reading most of it, I still don't know what AGI or AGI-hard is. Going to feed it into ChatGPT and have it explain to me...

This would be a nice addition to HackerNews. Feed all linked article into ChatGPT, and have her generate automatically an abstract.

(I guess we should say "have her generate AI-tically an abstract)

Re: What Is AGI-Hard

#99

Post by tgv »

MichaelRazum wrote: post #92
tgv wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chess and other games are solved, because they use well-defined rules, and have a combinatorial explosion that we cannot comprehend. Text and art are not solved. What would solved even mean for those? There are NNs which produce decent output given a simple prompt, but e.g. art is characterized to a large extent by development over time. Stable Diffusion isn't going to develop by itself. Robotics OTOH is much simpler…

Agree, solved is not well defined. Let's just say it becomes hard to distinguish it from a human. For robotics, I just think of a "simple" tasks like picking up an object and moving it to some place. Haven't seen yet something like this in robotics, that looks human or animal like.

Not to just contradict, but computers playing chess or video games is also distinct from human play. I'm absolutely not expecting strong AI (as "AGI" used to be called) to be realized within 100 years, but when it does, it will have distinctly non-human qualities. Intelligence is shaped by the constraints of the hardware, so to speak, and a computer's constraints will be different. It's been predicted that the first self-aware AI will develop severe mental problems, almost, but not quite, entirely unlike Marvin in THHGTTG.

Re: What Is AGI-Hard

#100

Post by ben7799 »

I find it interesting that everyone is arguing about AGI-hard or AI-complete or whatever and trying to find where those boundaries are. Those are interesting problems for sure.

But that's not what he's talking about, it's not the point. The scary thing and the important point in the article is that most of the press and non-technical people are being sold the idea that nothing is AGI-hard or requires Human Intelligence, whatever that is.

Large swaths of press & so called "tech" people in business think all these hard problems are already solved. And they use this to seek investment or pump up companies in weird ways, only to later be mystified when the AI success doesn't appear to work like they thought.

It's like arguing about whether something is NP-complete or not when a bunch of businesses are taking lots of money from investors with a pitch that makes it sound like they have figured out a way to efficiently solve all problems that were previously thought to be NP-complete. But they've shown no evidence they can do so.

Post reply on HN