Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 229 posts

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#31

Post by komali2 »

raincole wrote: post #25
pocketarc wrote: post #20

When people imagined AI/AGI, they imagined something that can reason like we can, except at the speed of a computer, which we always envisioned would lead to the singularity. In a short period of time, AI would be so far ahead of us and our existing ideas, that the world would become unrecognizable. That's not what's happening here, and it's worth remembering: A caveman from 200K years ago would have been just as int…

> A caveman from 200K years ago would have been just as intelligent as any of us here today In other words, intelligence offers zero evolutionary advantage?

200k years just isn't much time for significant evolutionary changes considering the human population "reset" a couple times to very very small numbers.

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#33

Post by lvoudour »

LogicFailsMe wrote: post #21
lvoudour wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How well you interact with other members of a society increases your chances of procreation, survival, knowledge acquisition, ie. it makes sense as a measure of intelligence

It's a pretty ambiguous definition. The most powerful man in the world right now is not someone I consider a role model for social cognition and yet there he is with the football for the second time demonstrating grandmaster skill at social cognition to get there.

You don't have to be empathetic and nice, just good at navigating society.

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#34

Post by speefers »

guerrilla wrote: post #28
raincole wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A caveman from 200K years ago would have been just as intelligent as any of us here today In other words, intelligence offers zero evolutionary advantage?

It looks like quite the disadvantage, in fact. We're killing ourselves and a lot of other stuff in the process.

[dead]

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#35

Post by stingraycharles »

zug_zug wrote: post #17

I'm sorry what even is this? Giving $10k rewards for significant advancements toward "AGI"? What does "making a framework" even mean, it feels like a nothing post. When I think of what real AGI would be I think: - Passes the turing test - Writes a New York Times Bestseller without revealing it was written by AI - Writes journal articles that pass peer review - Wins a Nobel Prize - Writes a successful comedy routine -…

I get the feeling that the original post was also written using LLMs, it doesn’t make a lot of sense.

If an LLM like this is really intelligent, at the very least, I’d expect it to be able to invent.

For example, train an LLM on a dataset only containing knowledge from before nuclear energy was invented, and see if it can invent nuclear energy.

But that’s the problem: they’re not really training the model on intelligence, they’re training it on knowledge. So if you strip away the knowledge, you’re left with almost nothing.

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#36

Post by NooneAtAll3 »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #24
pocketarc wrote: post #20

When people imagined AI/AGI, they imagined something that can reason like we can, except at the speed of a computer, which we always envisioned would lead to the singularity. In a short period of time, AI would be so far ahead of us and our existing ideas, that the world would become unrecognizable. That's not what's happening here, and it's worth remembering: A caveman from 200K years ago would have been just as int…

The amount of things LLMs can do is insane. It's interesting to me how much effort the AI companies (and bloggers) put into claiming they can do things they can't, when there's almost an unlimited list of things they actually can do.

for example?

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#37

Post by komali2 »

Traubenfuchs wrote: post #27
pocketarc wrote: post #20

When people imagined AI/AGI, they imagined something that can reason like we can, except at the speed of a computer, which we always envisioned would lead to the singularity. In a short period of time, AI would be so far ahead of us and our existing ideas, that the world would become unrecognizable. That's not what's happening here, and it's worth remembering: A caveman from 200K years ago would have been just as int…

> A caveman from 200K years ago would have been just as intelligent as any of us here today, despite not having language or technology, or any knowledge. Doubt. If we would teleport cavemen babies right out of the womb to our times, I don't think they'd turn into high IQ individuals. People knowledgeable on human history / human evolution might now the correct answer.

From what I understand, in terms of genetic changes to intellectual abilities, there's not much evidence to suggest we're so much smarter that your proposed teleported baby would be noticeably stupider - at best they'd be on the tail of the bell curve, well within a normal distribution. Maybe if we teleported ten thousand babies, their bell curve would be slightly behind ours. Take a look at "wild children" for the very few examples we can find of modern humans developed without culture. Seems like above everything, our culture, society, and thus education is what makes us smart. And our incredibly high calorie food, of course.

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#40

Post by lucianbr »

Traubenfuchs wrote: post #27
pocketarc wrote: post #20

When people imagined AI/AGI, they imagined something that can reason like we can, except at the speed of a computer, which we always envisioned would lead to the singularity. In a short period of time, AI would be so far ahead of us and our existing ideas, that the world would become unrecognizable. That's not what's happening here, and it's worth remembering: A caveman from 200K years ago would have been just as int…

> A caveman from 200K years ago would have been just as intelligent as any of us here today, despite not having language or technology, or any knowledge. Doubt. If we would teleport cavemen babies right out of the womb to our times, I don't think they'd turn into high IQ individuals. People knowledgeable on human history / human evolution might now the correct answer.

Can you articulate why you think so? This kind of response "I just don't agree" reads as zero useful information. At least to me.
Post reply on HN