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

91–100 of 201 posts

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#91

Post by famouswaffles »

skepticATX wrote: post #76
danbruc wrote: post #41

Build and train something to the point that it can read books, watch lectures and gain new knowledge by itself. When it has never heard about calculus and you give some calculus books and lectures to it and after that it can solve calculus problems, declare victory.

Right. I think one reason that the definition of AGI is so contentious is that we're not that close to it. All of the current benchmarks are interesting but I don't see how we ever use those to declare that AGI has been reached. And quite frankly, I don't think we'd even care about most of them if we had a truly intelligent system. For me, if hook up an AI with no training to a vehicle and it drives at a human level…

>For me, if hook up an AI with no training to a vehicle and it drives at a human level in arbitrary scenarios

Lol what human with no training is going to succeed at driving ?

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#92

Post by mannykannot »

charcircuit wrote: post #84
amelius wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That was not an innovation of ChatGPT.

It's pretty clear that ChatGPT is being used here as a synecdoche for recent LLMs, and transformer LLMs in particular.

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#93

Post by romesc »

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.

In my opinion, this is the crux.

Think about it for a moment. Can you define human intelligence? Have you ever gotten in a debate with someone about this? Is there a commonly accepted way to designate intelligence that isn't somewhat controversial?

How will we ever define AGI if we still haven't even defined RoHI (Regular ol' Human Intelligence) sufficiently?

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#94

Post by worrycue »

welshwelsh wrote: post #59
mdp2021 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> considered Artificial Intelligence anymore That is just the confusion between AI and AGI - which may seem to be peaking for some reason (in the past few days it seemed like a zombie apocalypse). The so-called "AI effect" is said by some to originate from some "Ah but this is not intelligent" - but there where we wanted to solve a problem of replacing intelligent action, not of implementing it. Be contented with the…

What counts as "human level"? I would contend that a 5-year-old has general intelligence, and therefore an AI system with the language and reasoning abilities of a 5-year-old has artificial general intelligence. But the discriminator of having to "pay an intelligent professional otherwise" sets the bar very high. That implies AGI must be an expert in every subject, surpassing the average human. I'd prefer we use a di…

> What counts as "human level"?

IMHO if it can do every single human job at a level of competency that's consider acceptable if a human did it, I would consider that "human level" - frankly, it's implied that when people say "human level", they mean the average human.

Seriously though, arguing over semantics is just a waste of time. It's what it can do and the consequences of what it can that really matter.

> That implies AGI must be an expert in every subject, surpassing the average human.

Doesn't have to be the same AI "instance". We can have multiple copies of the AI with different specializations. That would still count - I mean it's how we humans do it.

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#95

Post by dkjaudyeqooe »

eimrine wrote: post #16
weego wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ChatGPT, is that you?

I hate post-2022 internet discussions because one is really common nowadays - talk about statements you don't like that they were written by bot. This accusation takes ridiculously low number of symbols, so it is impossible even to react to this kind of assumption because answering to troll using significantly more symbols is the definition of troll feeding. By the way, the message you are referring to consist of mor…

The irony is you (probably human) are replying to obvious satire, but were unable to see it.

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#96

Post by skepticATX »

famouswaffles wrote: post #91
skepticATX wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. I think one reason that the definition of AGI is so contentious is that we're not that close to it. All of the current benchmarks are interesting but I don't see how we ever use those to declare that AGI has been reached. And quite frankly, I don't think we'd even care about most of them if we had a truly intelligent system. For me, if hook up an AI with no training to a vehicle and it drives at a human level…

>For me, if hook up an AI with no training to a vehicle and it drives at a human level in arbitrary scenarios Lol what human with no training is going to succeed at driving ?

Most teenagers are at least somewhat competent from the very beginning. The rest of the time is spent becoming confident.

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#97

Post by jsiva »

VirusNewbie wrote: post #90
famouswaffles wrote: post #86

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 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.

Needs a few more constraints, otherwise someone could just maintain a session for a week and this task would be trivial

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#98

Post by worrycue »

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.

Have you heard of "glitch tokens"? To my knowledge, all these are hand patched. There are probably more lurking somewhere in its data.

Also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37054241 has quite a few examples of GPT-4 being broken.

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#99

Post by dkjaudyeqooe »

romesc wrote: post #93
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.

In my opinion, this is the crux. Think about it for a moment. Can you define human intelligence? Have you ever gotten in a debate with someone about this? Is there a commonly accepted way to designate intelligence that isn't somewhat controversial? How will we ever define AGI if we still haven't even defined RoHI (Regular ol' Human Intelligence) sufficiently?

This is the actual issue with AGI. No one has a rigorous, concrete and non-circular definition of human intelligence.

No doubt we'll have many useful and amazing tools, but none of them will approximate human intelligence anytime soon unless we have a deeper understanding of what it is. We're just scratching the surface of the "AI" field.

But something is certain: the next time people claim AGI has arrived, it will be another chatbot.

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#100

Post by ben_w »

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.

One definition of intelligence would be how many examples are needed to get a pattern.

AFAIK, all the major AI, not just LLMs but also game players, cars, anthropomorphic kinematic control systems for games [0] need the equivalent of multiple human lifetimes to do anything interesting.

That they can end up skilled in so many fields it would take humans many lifetimes to master is notable, but it's still kinda odd we can't get to the level of a 5-year-old with just the experiences we would expect a 5-year-old to have.

[0] Stuff like this: https://youtu.be/nAMSfmHuMOQ

Post reply on HN