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

Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

cis.temple.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 201 posts

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#81

Post by mdp2021 »

ballenf wrote: post #78
mdp2021 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> goal post ... define it But we have a pretty clear idea of what we want. Just looking at the remarkably intelligent and spectacularly unintelligent should give a definite picture to work on. (When the spectacularly unintelligent is responsible for important resources a sense of urgency can easily be added.) > integrating sensory input with action and reward mechanisms There you reveal you may not be speaking about…

> But we have a pretty clear idea of what we want. The bellwether for me personally is waiting for a system that can generate something conceptually novel. Something like the move from the real to the complex number systems. Or the move from Newtonian motion to relativistic understanding. Maybe systems already have such insights but don't have the vocabulary to explain it. A system that when presented with a problem…

> too high or too low a bar

I would say that is where we would like to head, and I do not see why we would not go there if we found the operational definition of intelligence.

An issue may be in the possibility of intelligence as a collection of more faculties.

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#82

Post by goatlover »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #48

>> In the past, there were some ambitious projects aiming at this goal, though they all failed. So some people like to repeat. Yet, outside of the hand-picked examples in the article (the 5th generation computer project? Blast from the past!) there are a whole bunch of classic AI domains where real progress has been achieved in the last few decades. Here's a few: * Game-playing and adversarial search: from Deep Blue…

If Data from Star Trek (or Eva from Ex Machina) walked out of a lab, we’d have no problem accepting that AGI had been accomplished. Or if the scenario in the movie Her played out with the Samantha OS, we’d be forced to admit not only to AGI, but the evolution of ASI as well. However, there are no such examples in the real world, and after months of overhyping ChatGPT, we still don’t have anything like Data. So it’s not shifting the definition, it’s recognizing that accomplishing a single intelligent task isn’t general intelligence.

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#83

Post by charcircuit »

stuckinhell wrote: post #60
amelius wrote: post #55

Better title: "Artificial General Intelligence – We don't know the heck where this is going but here are some thoughts"

I've been forced to work with a team of very very smart Phds from ivy league universities to help put together an explanation deck for the c-suite. They've informally told me, the neural nets AI tech is beyond human understanding. Everybody can only explain very small pieces of it,and no one knows how the pieces work together.

It's not beyond human understanding. Unless you mean that one must know everything from every research paper released. At its core you are just finding a well performing model using gradient descent. Gradient descent is not beyond human understanding.

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#84

Post by charcircuit »

amelius wrote: post #79
Sharlin wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely engineering. It’s not entirely wrong to say that the two reasons it took us until 2022 to make a ChatGPT are 1) the computing power needed and 2) the size of the training corpus needed. The same goes for other generative AI – it took a corpus of a couple billion images to train a Stable Diffusion model.

You may argue that it took a leap of insight to get to transformer models, though.

That was not an innovation of ChatGPT.

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#85

Post by mannykannot »

layer8 wrote: post #72
stuckinhell wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been forced to work with a team of very very smart Phds from ivy league universities to help put together an explanation deck for the c-suite. They've informally told me, the neural nets AI tech is beyond human understanding. Everybody can only explain very small pieces of it,and no one knows how the pieces work together.

Yes. In a recent HN submission, ChatGPT was listed as a “scientific advance” of the past year. While it’s certainly some kind of advance, to me it seems to be more on the engineering side than on the scientific understanding side.

If we discovered a species of parrot that could learn to use language in the manner of recent LLMs, that would count as a scientific advance (though not a breakthrough, at least until we achieved a good grasp on how it is possible.)

Science advances firstly by finding something in want of an explanation, and then by coming up with one.

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#86

Post by famouswaffles »

goatlover wrote: post #82
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #48

>> In the past, there were some ambitious projects aiming at this goal, though they all failed. So some people like to repeat. Yet, outside of the hand-picked examples in the article (the 5th generation computer project? Blast from the past!) there are a whole bunch of classic AI domains where real progress has been achieved in the last few decades. Here's a few: * Game-playing and adversarial search: from Deep Blue…

If Data from Star Trek (or Eva from Ex Machina) walked out of a lab, we’d have no problem accepting that AGI had been accomplished. Or if the scenario in the movie Her played out with the Samantha OS, we’d be forced to admit not only to AGI, but the evolution of ASI as well. However, there are no such examples in the real world, and after months of overhyping ChatGPT, we still don’t have anything like Data. So it’s n…

>If Data from Star Trek (or Eva from Ex Machina) walked out of a lab, we’d have no problem accepting that AGI had been accomplished

Lol no.

What testable definition of general intelligence does GPT-4 fail that a good chunk of humans also wouldn't ?

If you can answer this then you have a point, otherwise I really beg to differ.

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#87

Post by famouswaffles »

charcircuit wrote: post #83
stuckinhell wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been forced to work with a team of very very smart Phds from ivy league universities to help put together an explanation deck for the c-suite. They've informally told me, the neural nets AI tech is beyond human understanding. Everybody can only explain very small pieces of it,and no one knows how the pieces work together.

It's not beyond human understanding. Unless you mean that one must know everything from every research paper released. At its core you are just finding a well performing model using gradient descent. Gradient descent is not beyond human understanding.

Gradient descent in isolation is obviously not what they are alluding to. What the models are doing inside the box and what any of those millions or billions of weights mean or do is beyond human understanding.

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#88

Post by tpoacher »

trabant00 wrote: post #56
tpoacher wrote: post #49

AGI is not a difficult "problem". It's a difficult "definition". Given very specific, practical, functional definitions, AGI is a breeze.

I keep hearing this argument that we already have AI, it's just the naysayers move the definition. Level 5 autonomous driving is specific, practical, functionally defined. Where's the breeze implementation?

GTA San Andreas /s

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#89

Post by mannykannot »

charcircuit wrote: post #83
stuckinhell wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been forced to work with a team of very very smart Phds from ivy league universities to help put together an explanation deck for the c-suite. They've informally told me, the neural nets AI tech is beyond human understanding. Everybody can only explain very small pieces of it,and no one knows how the pieces work together.

It's not beyond human understanding. Unless you mean that one must know everything from every research paper released. At its core you are just finding a well performing model using gradient descent. Gradient descent is not beyond human understanding.

Anyone satisfied with "it's gradient descent" as an explanation isn't displaying much curiosity.

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#90

Post by VirusNewbie »

famouswaffles wrote: post #86
goatlover wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Data from Star Trek (or Eva from Ex Machina) walked out of a lab, we’d have no problem accepting that AGI had been accomplished. Or if the scenario in the movie Her played out with the Samantha OS, we’d be forced to admit not only to AGI, but the evolution of ASI as well. However, there are no such examples in the real world, and after months of overhyping ChatGPT, we still don’t have anything like Data. So it’s n…

>If Data from Star Trek (or Eva from Ex Machina) walked out of a lab, we’d have no problem accepting that AGI had been accomplished Lol no. What testable definition of general intelligence does GPT-4 fail that a good chunk of humans also wouldn't ? If you can answer this then you have a point, otherwise I really beg to differ.

Tell them something important to remember, ask a week later.
Post reply on HN