261–270 of 394 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The whole point of AGI is "general" intelligence, and for that intelligence to be broadly useful it needs to exist within the context of a human centric world
Does this mean blind people are not intelligent?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know what the G stands for in AGI? General intelligence. You could measure a plane on general versatility in air and it would lose against a bird. You could also measure it against energy consumption. There are a lot of things you can measure a lot of them are pointless, a lot of articles on HN are pointless. There are very valid reasons to measure that. You wouldn’t ask a plane to drive you to the neighbor or to…
Planes aren't trying to replace birds. ML is trying to replace humans, so unless they also demonstrate that quick learning ability isn't necessary to perform the tasks a human does the measures still make sense.
Are household appliances trying to replace humans?
This is a very good estimation of AGI. We give humans and AI the same input and measure the results. Kudos to ARC for creating these games. I really wonder why so many people fight against this. We know that AI is useful, we know that AI is researchful, but we want to know if they are what we vaguely define as intelligence. I’ve read the airplanes don’t use wings, or submarines don’t swim. Yes, but this is is not the…
The thing is.. this is more akin to testing a blind person's performance on a driving test than testing his intelligence. I would imagine if you simply encoded the game in textual format and asked an LLM to come up with a series of moves, it would beat humans. The problem here is more around perception than anything.
I still agree that this is like declaring blind people lack human intelligence, of course.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I had a puzzle I really needed solved, then I would not ask a rando on the street, I would ask someone I know is really good at puzzles. My point is: For AGI to be useful, it really should be able to perform at the top 10% or better level for as many professions as possible (ideally all of them). An AI that can only perform at the average human level is useless unless it can be trained for the job like humans can.
> An AI that can only perform at the average human level is useless unless it can be trained for the job like humans can. Yes, if you want skilled labour. But that's not at all what ARC-AGI attempts to test for: it's testing for general intelligence as possessed by anyone without a mental incapacity.
Humans without a clinically recognized mental disability are generally capable of some kind of skilled labor. The "general" part of intelligence is independent of, but sufficient for, any such special application.
This is a very good estimation of AGI. We give humans and AI the same input and measure the results. Kudos to ARC for creating these games. I really wonder why so many people fight against this. We know that AI is useful, we know that AI is researchful, but we want to know if they are what we vaguely define as intelligence. I’ve read the airplanes don’t use wings, or submarines don’t swim. Yes, but this is is not the…
AGI’s 'general' is the wrong word, I thinkg. Humans aren’t general, we’re jagged. Strong in some areas, weak in others, and already surpassed in many domains. LLM are way past us at languages for instance. Calculators passed us at calculating, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AGI’s 'general' is the wrong word, I thinkg. Humans aren’t general, we’re jagged. Strong in some areas, weak in others, and already surpassed in many domains. LLM are way past us at languages for instance. Calculators passed us at calculating, etc.
I’d actually focus on something else entirely here. Let's be honest: we are giving LLMs and humans the exact same tasks, but are we putting them on an equal playing field? Specifically, do they have access to the same resources and behavioral strategies? - LLMs don't have spatial reasoning. - LLMs don't have a lifetime of video game experience starting from childhood. - LLMs don't have working memory or the ability t…
There are high-level similarities between ANNs and the human brain but they are very, very, very different in a ton of ways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even dumb humans are considered to have general intelligence. If the bar is having to outdo the median human, then 50% of humans don't have general intelligence.
Not true. We don't have a good definition for intelligence - it's very much an I'll know it when I see it sort of thing. Frontier models are reliably providing high undergraduate to low graduate level customized explanations of highly technical topics at this point. Yet I regularly catch them making errors that a human never would and which betray a fatal lack of any sort of mental model. What are we supposed to make…
>But is it general? I don't think so
I would consider it as general due to me being able to take any problem I can think of and the AI will make an attempt to solve it. Actually solving it is not a requirement for AGI. Being able to solve it just makes it smarter than an AGI that can't. You can trip up chess AI, but that don't stop them from being AI. So why apply that standard to AGI?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> An AI that can only perform at the average human level is useless unless it can be trained for the job like humans can. Yes, if you want skilled labour. But that's not at all what ARC-AGI attempts to test for: it's testing for general intelligence as possessed by anyone without a mental incapacity.
It seems they don't test for that, since they use the second-best human solution as a baseline. And that's the right way to go. When computers were about to become superhuman at chess, few people cared that it could beat random people for many years prior to that. They cared when Kasparov was dethroned. Remember, the point here is marketing as well as science. And the results speak for themselves. After all, you reme…
There is an additional fascinating aspect to these matches, in that Kasparov obviously knew he was facing a computer, and decided to play a number of sub-optimal openings because he hoped they might confound the computer's opening book.
It's not at all clear Deep Blue would have eked out the rematch victory had Kasparov respected it as an opponent, in the way he did various human grandmasters at the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even dumb humans are considered to have general intelligence. If the bar is having to outdo the median human, then 50% of humans don't have general intelligence.
Not true. We don't have a good definition for intelligence - it's very much an I'll know it when I see it sort of thing. Frontier models are reliably providing high undergraduate to low graduate level customized explanations of highly technical topics at this point. Yet I regularly catch them making errors that a human never would and which betray a fatal lack of any sort of mental model. What are we supposed to make…
I have yet to see a "error" that modern frontier models make that I could not imagine a human making - average humans are way more error prone than the kind of person who posts here thinks, because the social sorting effects of intelligence are so strong you almost never actually interact with people more than a half standard deviation away. (The one exception is errors in spatial reasoning with things humans are intimately familiar with - for example, clothing - because LLMs live in literary space, not physics space, and only know about these things secondhand)
> and which betray a fatal lack of any sort of mental model.
This has not been a remotely credible claim for at least the past six months, and it seemed obviously untrue for probably a year before then. They clearly do have a mental model of things, it's just not one that maps cleanly to the model of a human who lives in 3D space. In fact, their model of how humans interact is so good that you forget that you're talking to something that has to infer rather than intuit how the physical world works, and then attribute failures of that model to not having one.