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

81–90 of 229 posts

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#81

Post by paganel »

ixtli wrote: post #18
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 -…

They’re slowly redefining AGI so they can use it for more marketing. If you showed someone from 1960 our LLMs from and told them “this is AI” I think they’d be astounded but a little confused because “artificial intelligence” definitely carried a very clear meaning in literature and media. Now it is marketing terminology and we’re no closer to having a meaningful definition for the word intelligence.

> They’re slowly redefining AGI so they can use it for more marketing.

If they don't do that then those trillions of dollars that support their current share price will most probably evaporate, so there are very big incentives for them to just outright try and re-create reality (like what we usually meant when we were thinking about artificial intelligence).

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#82

Post by torben-friis »

orangebread wrote: post #50

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…

I think you are mixing up consciousness and will.

I could not have consciousness and you would not be able to tell, you don't have proof of anyone's counciousness except your own. You don't even have proof that the you of yesterday is the same as you, since you-today could be another consciousness that just happens to share the same memories.

All of that is also orthogonal to your belief in a spirit/soul... but getting back to the main point, the specificity you mention is a product of a limited time and learning speed, I'd be happy to get a surgeon or politicians training if given infinite time.

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#84

Post by next_xibalba »

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.

Human population is at an all time (and growing) and the global mean life expectancy is double if not triple what it was in the time of cave men.

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#85

Post by Fricken »

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?

Our big brains are a recent mutation and haven't been fully field tested. They seem like more of a liability than anything, they've created more existential risks for us than they've put to rest.

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#86

Post by mhl47 »

Planktonne wrote: post #56
mhl47 wrote: post #46

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.

The knowledge that everything is made out of atoms/molecules however makes it much easier to reason about your environment. And based on this knowledge you also learn algorithms, how to solve problems etc. I dont think its possible to completely separate knowledge from intelligence.

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#87

Post by Jensson »

paganel wrote: post #79
Planktonne wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Knowledge is a thing you can use intelligence on, but not a component of intelligence itself.

Separating knowledge from intelligence is not a given.

You can give an intelligent being knowledge but you can't give a book intelligence. So I think its easy to separate knowledge from intelligence.

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#88

Post by Jensson »

mhl47 wrote: post #86
Planktonne wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Knowledge is a thing you can use intelligence on, but not a component of intelligence itself.

The knowledge that everything is made out of atoms/molecules however makes it much easier to reason about your environment. And based on this knowledge you also learn algorithms, how to solve problems etc. I dont think its possible to completely separate knowledge from intelligence.

But an intelligent being could learn that, do you think they become more intelligent if you tell them things are made out of atoms? To me the answer is very simple, no they don't become more intelligent.

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#89

Post by suddenlybananas »

imetatroll wrote: post #76
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…

This is a bit of an anti-evolutionary perspective. At some point in our past, we were something much less intelligent than we are now. Our intelligence didn't spring out of thin air. Whether or not AI can evolve is yet to be seen I think.

LLMs are not AGI, something else may be in the future. Acknowledging this has nothing to do with evolution.

Re: Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework

#90

Post by [deleted] »

next_xibalba wrote: post #84
guerrilla wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Human population is at an all time (and growing) and the global mean life expectancy is double if not triple what it was in the time of cave men.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN