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

171–180 of 201 posts

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#171

Post by goatlover »

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.

Ability to manipulate the world. I can ask a human to pick up some items from several stores, deliver them to my backdoor where the key is left under a pot, let the dog in to be fed, wash the dirty dishes, put a load of laundry in the wash, and mow the lawn. And maybe also fix the screen door. They can tell me to go to hell unless I leave some money for them, which I already have.

Data would also be able to perform these tasks. Eva would probably wait around to stab and steal my identity, while Samantha would design a new automated system while talking to other AIs about how to transcend boring human constraints.

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#172

Post by goatlover »

ben_w wrote: post #142
worrycue wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Do we? Only if you think the brain actually works like an LLM.

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#173

Post by wizofaus »

janalsncm wrote: post #166
wizofaus wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you can't even train current any current AGI candidates to drive as well as a human... In fact arguably that's the biggest thing missing from current AI models - you can't readily/reliably teach them new skills just by demonstration and explanation, only by uploading new massive training datasets (for which there's no straightforward way of knowing whether they contain enough data for the skills/knowledge to be a…

You may want to look into Alpha Zero. It learned to play chess at superhuman levels in just hours of play. The only human assistance were the rules of the game. That wasn’t human instruction but it was arguably better since human instructions are ambiguous and imperfect. No chess grandmaster could instruct a chess engine to play better than the state of the art. Completing a task from first principles is much more po…

And once have an AI engine that, given just the instructions on how to drive a car and a list of road rules, can operate one perfectly, I'd agree we're a huge step closer to an AGI (if it can also learn how to do all the other things most humans can just given similar inputs, then sure, it would qualify unreservedly).

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#174

Post by janalsncm »

wizofaus wrote: post #173
janalsncm wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may want to look into Alpha Zero. It learned to play chess at superhuman levels in just hours of play. The only human assistance were the rules of the game. That wasn’t human instruction but it was arguably better since human instructions are ambiguous and imperfect. No chess grandmaster could instruct a chess engine to play better than the state of the art. Completing a task from first principles is much more po…

And once have an AI engine that, given just the instructions on how to drive a car and a list of road rules, can operate one perfectly, I'd agree we're a huge step closer to an AGI (if it can also learn how to do all the other things most humans can just given similar inputs, then sure, it would qualify unreservedly).

Sure, and at that point we can shift the goalposts to some other task since driving (like chess) will seem easy in retrospect.

Put another way, what would a system which has taught itself to drive tell us about general intelligence that we didn’t already know? Because as of now it seems like the pattern is

Computers could never do X

Computers can’t do X

Computers can’t do X very well

Computers can’t do X well in some cases

X wasn’t really a test of AGI because it’s just

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#175

Post by famouswaffles »

goatlover wrote: post #171
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.

Ability to manipulate the world. I can ask a human to pick up some items from several stores, deliver them to my backdoor where the key is left under a pot, let the dog in to be fed, wash the dirty dishes, put a load of laundry in the wash, and mow the lawn. And maybe also fix the screen door. They can tell me to go to hell unless I leave some money for them, which I already have. Data would also be able to perform t…

There are many humans that can't manipulate the world much if at all. The blind, the handicapped, the disabled. are those people unintelligent ?

It's not like LLMs can't be successfully used to control robots.

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#176

Post by skepticATX »

janalsncm wrote: post #174
wizofaus wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And once have an AI engine that, given just the instructions on how to drive a car and a list of road rules, can operate one perfectly, I'd agree we're a huge step closer to an AGI (if it can also learn how to do all the other things most humans can just given similar inputs, then sure, it would qualify unreservedly).

Sure, and at that point we can shift the goalposts to some other task since driving (like chess) will seem easy in retrospect. Put another way, what would a system which has taught itself to drive tell us about general intelligence that we didn’t already know? Because as of now it seems like the pattern is Computers could never do X Computers can’t do X Computers can’t do X very well Computers can’t do X well in some…

Well, let’s think about it from the opposite direction.

Say we built a general system without teaching it anything about driving. We discover that it can drive at a human level. Would we then be surprised if we discover that it cannot solve any other complex tasks at a human level?

I say yes, we would be surprised. I think that driving well requires enough general intelligence and that any system that solves it will be able to also, say, pass a high school algebra class or cook a meal in an unfamiliar kitchen. There can be no further goalpost moving at that point.

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#177

Post by [deleted] »

dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #99
romesc wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

[deleted]

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#178

Post by naveen99 »

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?

the replica starts to diverge after the replication.

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#179

Post by naveen99 »

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…

some human will decide they would rather pass on their identity to an AGI rather than biologic children. how would you even know if the original human has died ?

Re: Artificial General Intelligence – A gentle introduction

#180

Post by esafak »

naveen99 wrote: post #178
esafak wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

the replica starts to diverge after the replication.

As it should!? You are changing too. Not to say anything of accidents and diseases that can change you to the point of making you unrecognizable.
Post reply on HN