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

141–150 of 201 posts

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#141

Post by VirusNewbie »

famouswaffles wrote: post #124
VirusNewbie wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, point is, we could easily design A test that 5th graders could pass that GPT4 as it is today would fail.

I said design an intelligence test that a good chunck of humans wouldn't also fail. I'm sorry to tell you this but there are many humans that would fail your test. Even otherwise healthy humans could fail your test nevermind Anterograde Amnesia, Dementia etc patients

You think that if we told the average fifth grader in america that they must remember something that is VERY IMPORTANT a week later, and then had them do, say, a book report on a brand new book, and then asked them the very important fact, a 'good chunk' would fail?

I'm fairly certain you're incorrect.

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#142

Post by ben_w »

worrycue wrote: post #139
ben_w wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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" an…

> Plenty of humans glitch out on random words (and concepts) we just can't get right. We don't lose our marbles the way GPT does when it encounters those words. It's like it read the Necronomicon or something and gone mad.

Some of us clearly do.

As we have no way to find them systematically, we can't tell if we all do, or if it's just some of us.

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#143

Post by theptip »

cubefox wrote: post #122
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…

AGI us not a very useful term, because people use it often synonymous with "human level or higher ability". But the opposite of "general AI" is not "less intelligent than a human" but "narrow AI". The narrow/general distinction is orthogonal to the low/high ability ("intelligence") distinction. All animals are very general, as their domain of operation is the real world, not some narrow modality like strings of text…

Personally I take AGI to refer to a system that is both “intelligent enough” and “general enough”. Given the existence of super-human narrow AI, the interesting property is generality, not intelligence. But I don’t think it’s useful to call a sub-human cat-level general AI an AGI.

Some would disagree; there was a paper arguing that ChatGPT is weak AGI.

But as I see it AGI is a term of art that refers to a point on the tech tree where AI is general enough to be able to meaningfully displace a large proportion of human knowledge workers. I think you may be overthinking the semantics; the “general enough and intelligent enough” quadrant is unique and will be incredibly disruptive when it arrives (whenever that ultimately is). We need a label for that frontier, “AGI” is by convention that label.

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#144

Post by kaibee »

esafak wrote: post #108
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?

> If the Star Trek transporter could replicate you would you care if it killed your existing copy in the process?

Uh, obviously?

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#145

Post by jeremyjh »

famouswaffles wrote: post #101
skepticATX wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A teenager isn’t going to try to accelerate by turning up the volume on the radio or opening the window but an AI with no training would have to try those kind of things.

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#146

Post by eimrine »

dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #95
eimrine wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Satire is compatible with most layers of pg's pyramid except of the top layer. But his comment is no higher than "responding to tone" - I know that GPT detectors use to false detect GPT-generated text in non-fluent human's one which is my case.

So I am not just were unable to see any satire in his comment but still is. But that was not useless: now I can answer to that kind of trolling with my comment which is upvoted despite of being located in [flagged] branch.

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#147

Post by ben_w »

famouswaffles wrote: post #121
ben_w wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I don't think saying "humans pass and AI doesn't" makes any sense here because the two are not even taking the same exam for all the points outlined above. Evolution alone means humans are "cheating" in this exam, making any comparisons fairly meaningless.

If all you care about is the results, or even specifically just the visible part of the costs, then there's no such thing as cheating.

That's both why I'm fine with the AI "cheating" by the transistors being faster than my synapses by the same magnitude that my legs are faster than continental drift (no really I checked) and also why I'm fine with humans "cheating" with evolutionary history and a much more complex brain (around a few thousand times GPT-3, which… is kinda wild, given what it implies about the potential for even rodent brains given enough experience and the right (potentially evolved) structures).

When the topic is qualia — either in the context "can the AI suffer?" or the context "are mind uploads a continuation of experience?" — then I care about the inner workings; but for economic transformation and alignment risks, I care if the magic pile of linear algebra is cost-efficient at solving problems (including the problem "how do I draw a photorealistic werewolf in a tuxedo riding a motorbike past the pyramids"), nothing else.

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#148

Post by AareyBaba »

d_burfoot wrote: post #114

It's strange to write a history of AI research without talking about the three big epochs: - logical/symbolic AI, aka GOFAI, which led to work like SAT solvers and STRIPS planners - classical label-based Machine Learning. Here the Perceptron was the starting point and the Support Vector Machine was the paradigmatic result. - modern self-supervised raw-data ML, of which GPT is the pinnacle result. It's very interestin…

You omitted the 90's when artificial life, genetic algorithms, subsumption architecture were the research topics.

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#149

Post by danbruc »

jeremyjh wrote: post #145
famouswaffles wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A teenager isn’t going to try to accelerate by turning up the volume on the radio or opening the window but an AI with no training would have to try those kind of things.

That would depend on the specifics of the AI, even without training on driving, it could still have some knowledge from seeing others drive or being able to identify the symbols on the controls or playing racing games. No training or prior knowledge seem an unfair comparison, that would be more like asking a newborn baby to drive.

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#150

Post by famouswaffles »

VirusNewbie wrote: post #141
famouswaffles wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said design an intelligence test that a good chunck of humans wouldn't also fail. I'm sorry to tell you this but there are many humans that would fail your test. Even otherwise healthy humans could fail your test nevermind Anterograde Amnesia, Dementia etc patients

You think that if we told the average fifth grader in america that they must remember something that is VERY IMPORTANT a week later, and then had them do, say, a book report on a brand new book, and then asked them the very important fact, a 'good chunk' would fail? I'm fairly certain you're incorrect.

Lol yes. People will fail. Any amoumt is enough to show your test is clearly not one of general intelligence unless you believe not all humans fit the bill.
Post reply on HN