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

101–110 of 129 posts

Re: What Is AGI-Hard

#101

Post by sinenomine »

chriswarbo wrote: post #66

https://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0605024 gives a formal model of intelligence (achieving high reward in an agent/environment setup, across all computable environments weighted by their Kolmogorov complexity) https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5951 gives a computable approximation (dubbed AIQ, Algorithmic Intelligence Quotient), and a reference implementation using Brainfuck programs (personally I would prefer Binary Combinatory Logi…

To add to it: a recent attempt at designing a psychometric test encoding human cognitive priors: https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.01547 - the ARC dataset.

https://github.com/google/BIG-bench - the most recent kitchen sink of a cognitive test, which includes the previous test as a subtask.

Apparently there are large language models (Chinchilla) that perform comparably to a median human level on this second test.

Re: What Is AGI-Hard

#102

Post by sinenomine »

beefield wrote: post #30

I occasionally wonder what would be examples of types of problems/questions that would be easy for post-singular superhuman AGI but very hard/impossible for humans? Not in sense how fast the problem is solved, but in the sense that the question/answer is even understood? So far I have come up with high-dimensional spatial awareness (not sure how well we could get what happens in 1000 dimensions).

It is also interesting to consider problems that will likely be still hard even for advanced AIs:

Control of (complex) nonlinear dynamical systems over long timescales will likely pose a problem and will require high-level unsavory shortcuts to work out. This may or may not include large-scale genetic engineering of mammals (including us) to express new characteristics later in life.

The moderate-scale genetic engineering, for example to uplift our cognitive capability or extend our lifespans could be easier for AIs, while for our own scientists it turned out to be barely tractable. Some will disagree here, noting the political red tape around the fields in question.

Re: What Is AGI-Hard

#103

Post by ohwellhere »

What mechanism behind intelligence could only be found in the natural world but not made into a machine?

That's the thought experiment I like in this arena. It's not useful for identifying a time to AGI, but it makes me believe AGI is possible eventually.

Trillions of connections in the brain? Okay, we can make networks with trillions of parameters. Body with sensory information? We can add that. Emotions via an endocrine system? Separate interconnected subsystems? All workable in some form. A pre-encoded prior of a billion years of evolution? That one is harder, but if we're working in GHz rather than 4 Hz, can we get close enough to bootstrap?

In a fully materialist interpretation of the world, I don't see anything stopping AGI from being possible.

Re: What Is AGI-Hard

#104

Post by jasfi »

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…

General means its not hard-coded to solve specific problems. Rather there are general purpose algorithms that can solve just about any problem you throw at it. It could be that some of these algorithms are somewhat specialized, but can still solve a wide range of problems never seen before.

Then there's a question of how supervised these algorithms are during training. Unsupervised is ideal, but some degree of supervised training isn't bad either and is more practical.

Re: What Is AGI-Hard

#105

Post by jcelerier »

bmitc wrote: post #60
Retric wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

feel free to go back live 2500 years ago

Re: What Is AGI-Hard

#106

Post by janalsncm »

mannykannot wrote: post #78
janalsncm wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very well said. Just want to add one thing. > This is a big problem now that there are systems able to produce huge volumes of plausible blithering that's factually wrong. If because of some law of nature ChatGPT were the last iteration of automatic text generation we could ever create, it would be a big and permanent problem. Right now it’s just a big and temporary problem, with a huge opportunity for automatic fact…

What you call a huge opportunity is actually (or also, if you prefer) a major shortfall in the current LLMs. Whether it will turn out to be merely temporary, and more pertinently, how it might be solved and whether it can be solved with more of the same, are themselves unanswered questions at this time.

Right, it’s a fundamental disconnect between how an autoregressive statistical language model generates text and how people think about talking and writing. We have known this for a long time. It is the essence of the civil war between symbolic NLP folks and statistical language modeling folks. Now that ChatGPT is quasi-mainstream, the strengths and weaknesses of the latter are on display for all to see.

My only point is that if we’re approaching a local maxima with purely statistical approaches, it raises the stakes for symbolic approaches to come through.

Re: What Is AGI-Hard

#107

Post by [deleted] »

jcelerier wrote: post #105
bmitc wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

feel free to go back live 2500 years ago

[deleted]

Re: What Is AGI-Hard

#108

Post by [deleted] »

mannykannot wrote: post #80
bmitc wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I am not entirely convinced you really hold this view, but if so, you could reduce technology's pernicious effects on yourself by not participating in this discussion.

[deleted]

Re: What Is AGI-Hard

#109

Post by karaterobot »

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…

I don't know if "human-level" makes sense to me either.

We already have human-level AI in plenty of areas, from chess to illustration to translation. A pocket calculator is human-level at arithmetic. Some flow-control monitoring software in a water treatment plant is human level at monitoring flow control. You could enumerate any number of skills in which software already meets or exceeds human levels, but even if you had a single AI that could do all of those things at a human level it would just feel like a bloated piece of software with a bunch of specialized modules that didn't add up to "real intelligence".

The only thing that I can think of which would suffice is human-type intelligence, rather than human-level intelligence. That is, a machine which is intelligent in a way that reminds us of humans. It's the Potter Stewart test for intelligence: "you know it when you see it". I don't know what else would end the debate.

To be clear, this is related to the argument about what AGI means, not whether that's a relevant topic to discuss, not whether we have systems which can solve useful problems, etc.

Re: What Is AGI-Hard

#110

Post by TheCoelacanth »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #24
logicallee wrote: post #13

I hereby endorse ChatGPT as a limited form of AGI. It can complete a variety of novel cognitive tasks (example: judging texts and proposals) often enough that it meets my personal requirements for this. My opinion is that the definitions which others believe disqualify ChatGPT from being considered AGI are not relevant, since they focus on things it fails at rather than what it can do. For example, when it tests as w…

Exactly the fallacy with people's expectations of AI is that it has to have a perfect track record of decision making. We humans actually fail that test and quite miserably so. Take self driving cars as an example. Self driving cars: barely any fatal accidents but some erratic behavior. People go "oh we can't have that because something extremely unlikely might kill somebody. Never mind it hasn't happened yet and mig…

All the stats I've seen are that self-driving cars have had vastly more deaths per mile driven than human-driven cars average.

The US has about 1.3 deaths per 100 million miles driven. None of the self-driving car models have driven even close to 100 million miles. Waymo is supposedly the closest with about 20 million. If they were as safe as humans, we should have seen 0-1 deaths, but there have been multiple.

Post reply on HN