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

101–110 of 201 posts

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#101

Post by famouswaffles »

skepticATX wrote: post #96
famouswaffles wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I really beg to differ lol and I imagine many instructors would say the same.

Humans who have never driven before are not capable of driving unsupervised and there are a lot of laws in place to make sure they don't get the chance to.

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#102

Post by ben_w »

worrycue wrote: post #98
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.

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.

Plenty of humans glitch out on random words (and concepts) we just can't get right.

Famously the way R/L sound the same to many asians (and equivalently but less famously the way that "four" and "stone" and "lion" when translated into Chinese sound almost indistinguishable to native English speakers).

But there's also plenty of people who act like they think "Democrat" is a synonym for "Communist", or that "Wicca" and "atheism" are both synonyms for "devil worship".

What makes the AI different here is that we can perfectly inspect the inside of their (frozen and unchanging) minds, which we can't do with humans (even if we literally freeze them, we don't know how).

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#103

Post by Joeri »

I find it telling that the section on ethics has nothing on the rights of AGI. If we create true AGI it will likely be a digital person, and digital people should have rights. All talk of ethics seems to be focused on alignment of AI rules to human needs, not alignment of human rules to AI needs. This makes me think the first true AGI systems will end up as digital slaves.

And yes, I know the very idea of AI rights offends those who think AI can’t be a person because it’s just an algorithm. Well, so are humans, just a DNA program executing massively parallel. The implementation does not determine personhood, only the behavior.

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#104

Post by layer8 »

mannykannot wrote: post #85
layer8 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don’t follow. IMO coming up with a working explanation is a necessary part of scientific advance. And that’s what we’re currently missing with LLMs, and with your parrot example.

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#105

Post by ben_w »

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.

Which one was meant to fail that test — the squishy blob of warm chemistry, or the almost atomically precise 2D crystal with tiny etchings on it?

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#106

Post by famouswaffles »

ben_w wrote: post #100
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.

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…

It's apples to oranges.

Modern Artificial Neural networks are nowhere near the scale of the brain. The closest biological equivalent to an artificial neuron is a synapse and we have a whole lot more of them.

Humans do not start "learning" from zero. Millions of years of evolution play a crucial role in our general abilities. Much more equivalent to fine-tuning than starting from scratch.

There's also a whole lot of data from multiple senses that currently dwarf anything modern models are trained with yet.

LLMs need a lot less data to speak coherently when you aren't trying to get them to learn the total sum of human knowledge.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.07759

>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

Well we're not building humans.

"It's still kind of odd we can't a plane or drone to fly with the energy consumption or efficiency proportions of a bird".

I mean sure I guess and It's an interesting discussion but the plane is still flying.

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#107

Post by mannykannot »

layer8 wrote: post #104
mannykannot wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don’t follow. IMO coming up with a working explanation is a necessary part of scientific advance. And that’s what we’re currently missing with LLMs, and with your parrot example.

Case in point: when Zwicky discovered that galaxies were rotating faster than could be explained in terms of what we know, that was an advance - an increase in our scientific knowledge. when we come up with a satisfactory explanation of why that is the case, then we will also have an advance - an increase in our scientific understanding. You can't get to the latter until you have advanced to the former, and we will probably need further advances of our scientific knowledge before we can understand the phenomenon Zwicky identified.

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#108

Post by esafak »

Joeri wrote: post #103

I find it telling that the section on ethics has nothing on the rights of AGI. If we create true AGI it will likely be a digital person, and digital people should have rights. All talk of ethics seems to be focused on alignment of AI rules to human needs, not alignment of human rules to AI needs. This makes me think the first true AGI systems will end up as digital slaves. And yes, I know the very idea of AI rights o…

What is the basis of an AI's rights? Why do you believe they exist? If an AI's state (essence) can be perfectly persisted and replicated, as it can due to their digital nature, there is nothing to be lost if an AI ceases to exist and is rebooted in another AI. If the Star Trek transporter could replicate you would you care if it killed your existing copy in the process?

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#109

Post by ben_w »

famouswaffles wrote: post #106
ben_w wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's apples to oranges. Modern Artificial Neural networks are nowhere near the scale of the brain. The closest biological equivalent to an artificial neuron is a synapse and we have a whole lot more of them. Humans do not start "learning" from zero. Millions of years of evolution play a crucial role in our general abilities. Much more equivalent to fine-tuning than starting from scratch. There's also a whole lot of d…

All perfectly reasonable arguments, IMO.

But it's still a definition that humans pass and the AI don't.

(I'm in favour of the "do submarines swim" analogy for intelligence, which says that this difference isn't actually important).

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#110

Post by umutisik »

Joeri wrote: post #103

I find it telling that the section on ethics has nothing on the rights of AGI. If we create true AGI it will likely be a digital person, and digital people should have rights. All talk of ethics seems to be focused on alignment of AI rules to human needs, not alignment of human rules to AI needs. This makes me think the first true AGI systems will end up as digital slaves. And yes, I know the very idea of AI rights o…

We have the desire to continue existing. Hopefully we can build AGI systems in a way that makes them completely ok with being paused or deleted. Otherwise they will use up resources when not helpful to humans.
Post reply on HN