71–80 of 229 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Evolutionary brain development. We all come from monke, monkey from 10 million years ago would definitely be unable to even learn spoken language at a basic level. Would he even have the anatomy to produce the required sounds? I don't think so. What about monke from 1 million years ago? 200 thousand years ago? ChatGpt says spoken language only emerged 50k - 200k years ago and that a cavemen baby from 200k years ago c…
Nowadays humans have smaller brains on average, though that is almost certainly not correlated with a lower skill in computer programming, but with lower skills in the techniques that one needed to survive as a hunter of big animals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who attuned your crystal ball? LLMs are already pretty general. They've got the multimodal ones, and aren't they using some sort of language-action-model to drive cars now? Who is to say AGI doesn't already exist?
It's a trick statement, because AGI is undefined.
At some point you have to throw in the towel when these things are going to be walking and talking around us. Some people move the goalposts of "AGI" to mean that the machine totally emulates a person. Including curiosity and creativity, of which these models are currently lacking.
But why should it? In genesis, it's said that god created man after its own image. I have to assume this implies we inherit god's mental attributes (curiosity, creativity, etc.) rather than its physical attributes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but also antibiotics, vaccinations, child mortality down down down, life expectancy up up up. I wouldn't trade for living even 100 years prior compared to today, or 500-200k years ago for that matter. With everything wrong and sick with today's world, let's not take the achievements of our species for granted.
You wouldn't make that trade because you are part of the last generation (loosely speaking, a collection of generations) before it all comes crumbling down. We are living unbelievably privileged lives because we are burning all of the world's resources to the ground. In the process, we're destroying the ecosystem and driving a mass extinction event. Nothing about the way we live is sustainable long-term. We're litera…
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…
As an engineer who is also spiritual at the core, it seems obvious to me the missing piece: consciousness. Hear me out. I love AI and have been using it since ChatGPT 3.5. The obvious question when I first used it was "does this qualify as sentience?" The answer is less obvious. Over the next 3 years we saw EXPONENTIAL intelligence gains where intelligence has now become a commodity, yet we are still unable to determ…
This is an interesting perspective. A follow up is maybe this is a feature not a bug: Do we want AI to have its own intrinsic goals, motivations, and desires, i.e. conciousness Im imagining having to ask ChatGPT how its day was and respect its emotions before I can ask it about what I want.
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 -…
There’s an implicit assumption that scaling text models alone gets us to human-like intelligence, but that seems unlikely without grounding in multiple sensory domains and a unified world model.
What’s interesting is that if we do go down that route successfully, we may get systems with something like internal experience or agency. At that point, the ethical frame changes quite a bit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you arrive at the statement that a cavemen would have the same intelligence as a human today? Intelligence is surely not usually defined as the cognitive potential at birth but as the current capability. And the knowledge an average human has today through education surely factors into that.
Knowledge is a thing you can use intelligence on, but not a component of intelligence itself.