381–390 of 394 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well you know, nothing's truly foolproof and incapable of error. He just had to fall back upon his human wit in that specific instance, and everything worked out in the end.
Everything worked out, except HAL did kill Poole and the three defenseless scientists on board who were in suspended animation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What the hell is general intelligence anyway? People seem to think it means human-like intelligence, but I can't imagine we have any good reason to believe that our kinds of intelligence constitute all possible kinds of intelligence--which, from the words, must be what "general" intelligence means. It seems like even if it's possible to achieve GI, artificial or otherwise, you'd never be able to know for sure that th…
> What the hell is general intelligence anyway? OpenAI used to define it as "a highly autonomous system that outperforms humans at most economically valuable work." Now they used a Level 1-5 scale: https://briansolis.com/2024/08/ainsights-openai-defines-five... So we can say AGI is "AI that can do the work of Organizations": > These “Organizations” can manage and execute all functions of a business, surpassing tradit…
Generality is about differences in kind. Like how my drill press can do things that an M4 can't. How could you ever know that your kinds of intelligence are all of them?
My pet peeve: talking about AGI without defining it. There’s no consistent, universally accepted definition. Without that, the discussion may be intellectually entertaining—but ultimately moot. And we run into the motte-and-bailey fallacy: at one moment, AGI refers to something known to be mathematically impossible (e.g., due to the No Free Lunch theorem); the next, it’s something we already have with GPT-4 (which, w…
I like chollet's definition: something that can quickly learn any skill without any innate prior knowledge or training.
Yet, if you take "any" literally, the answer is simple - there will never be one. Not even for practical reasons, but closer to why there isn't "a set of all sets".
Picking a sensible benchmark is the hard part.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the advantage of AGI is you don’t need to keep building new software for every task. Even the human's brain seems to be 'built' for its body. You're moving into ASI realm if the software can configure itself for the body automatically. > That’s the promise of AGI. That's the promise of multimodal AI. AGI requires general ability – meaning basically able to do anything humans can – which requires a body as capable a…
Human brains aren’t limited to the standard human body plan. People born with an extra finger have no issues operating that finger just as well as people with the normal complement of fingers. Animal experiments have pushed this quite far. If your AI has an issue because the robot has a different body plan, then no it’s not AGI. That doesn’t mean it needs to be able to watch every camera in a city at the same time, b…
But as the body starts to lose function (i.e. disability), we start to consider those humans special intelligences instead of general intelligences. The body and mind are intrinsically linked.
Best we can tell the human brain is bootstrapped to work with the human body with specialized functions, notably functions to keep it alive. It can go beyond those predefined behaviours, but not beyond its own self. If you placed the brain in an entirely different body, that which it doesn't recognize, it would quickly die.
As that pertains to artificial analogs, that means you can't just throw AGI at your hardware and see it function. You still need to manually prepare the bulk of the foundational software, contrary to the promise you envision. The generality of AGI is limited to how general its hardware is. If the hardware is specialized, the intelligence will be beholden to being specialized as well.
There is a hypothetical world where you can throw intelligence at any random hardware and watch it go, realizing the promise, but we call that ASI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Human brains aren’t limited to the standard human body plan. People born with an extra finger have no issues operating that finger just as well as people with the normal complement of fingers. Animal experiments have pushed this quite far. If your AI has an issue because the robot has a different body plan, then no it’s not AGI. That doesn’t mean it needs to be able to watch every camera in a city at the same time, b…
> Human brains aren’t limited to the standard human body plan. But as the body starts to lose function (i.e. disability), we start to consider those humans special intelligences instead of general intelligences. The body and mind are intrinsically linked. Best we can tell the human brain is bootstrapped to work with the human body with specialized functions, notably functions to keep it alive. It can go beyond those…
There’s a logical contradiction in saying AGI is incapable of being trained to do some function. It might take several to operate a sufficiently complex bit of hardware, but each individual function must be within the capability of an AGI.
> but we call that ASI
No ASI is about superhuman capabilities especially things like working memory and recursive self improvement. AGI capable of human level control of arbitrary platforms isn’t ASI. Conversely you can have an ASI stuck on a supercomputer cluster using wetware etc, that does qualify even if it can’t be loaded into a drone.
AGI on the other hand is about moving throughout wildly different tasks from real time image processing to answering phone calls. If there’s some aspect of operating a hardware platform an AI can’t do then it’s not AGI.
Doesn't even matter. The capabilities of the AI that's out NOW will take a decade or more to digest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For what reason have you interjected "more and ever more" into the conversation? I fail to see the relevance.
I extrapolated it from your statement: > But, you are right, the human fundamentally can never be satisfied That's usually associated with "they want more and more". If you feel that's wrong then just correct me and move any argument forward. Telegraphic replies are not an interesting discussion format.
How so? People want better and better, but better isn't necessarily satisfied by more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I extrapolated it from your statement: > But, you are right, the human fundamentally can never be satisfied That's usually associated with "they want more and more". If you feel that's wrong then just correct me and move any argument forward. Telegraphic replies are not an interesting discussion format.
> That's usually associated with "they want more and more". How so? People want better and better , but better isn't necessarily satisfied by more.
I was commenting on what I'm observing in most people I've met. But yeah, I'll agree I'm venturing into the clouds now and the discussion will become strictly theoretical and thus fruitless. Fair enough.
Thanks for indulging. :) Was interesting to hear takes so very different than mine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's usually associated with "they want more and more". How so? People want better and better , but better isn't necessarily satisfied by more.
I don't disagree. In fact I also subscribe under the same philosophy. I was commenting on what I'm observing in most people I've met. But yeah, I'll agree I'm venturing into the clouds now and the discussion will become strictly theoretical and thus fruitless. Fair enough. Thanks for indulging. :) Was interesting to hear takes so very different than mine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But the reality is that we want money Only in a symbolic way. Money is just debt. It doesn't mean anything if you can't call the loan and get back what you are owed. On the surface, that means stuff like food, shelter, cars, vacations, etc. But beyond the surface, what we really want is other people who will do anything we please. Power, as we often call it. AGI is, to some, seen as the way to give them "power". Bu…
> But beyond the surface, what we really want is other people who will do anything we please. Some people are definitely like this, but I think it is dangerous to generalize to everyone -- it is too easy to assume that everyone is the same, especially if you can dismiss any disagreement as "they are just hypocritical about their true desires" (in other words, if your theory is unfalsifiable). There are also people wh…
Nah. Not everyone wants to rule the world, but everyone wants someone else to do something for them sometimes. There is a reason we don't live completely isolated in the forest.