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

OpenAI begins rolling out GPT-6 Astra

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 277 posts

Re: OpenAI begins rolling out GPT-6 Astra

#221

Post by pixl97 »

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #206
pixl97 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If it can't learn for itself, then it's certainly not AGI. What does this even mean, exactly? For example if it can filter new information to put into the next version of itself does that qualify? If not, explain exactly why that's the case.

Ask 100 people what their definition of AGI is and you'll probably get 100 different answers. My definition is closer to DeepMind's "can do any [computer-based] task that a human can do", and certainly a human intern can learn on the job and do better on day #2 than day #1. Learning is basically THE hallmark of intelligence. Being able to learn from experience and use that to do better in the future. If you could som…

OK, let's say we get continuous learning today, what does tomorrow look like?

I won't argue that AI can do some learning as context sizes are still terribly small and expensive to iterate.

What does the world like in a week? A month? A year?

How long before these models drift to their own languages? To their own set of morals? To their own alignment?

None of these questions are answered and I'd rather stay at AGI-lite until they are as having a billion agents going off in their own directions seems like a recipe for disaster.

With current models and their general knowledge self learning just seems like you'd have a few ASIs crop up really quick.

Re: OpenAI begins rolling out GPT-6 Astra

#222

Post by jaggederest »

pixl97 wrote: post #221
HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ask 100 people what their definition of AGI is and you'll probably get 100 different answers. My definition is closer to DeepMind's "can do any [computer-based] task that a human can do", and certainly a human intern can learn on the job and do better on day #2 than day #1. Learning is basically THE hallmark of intelligence. Being able to learn from experience and use that to do better in the future. If you could som…

OK, let's say we get continuous learning today, what does tomorrow look like? I won't argue that AI can do some learning as context sizes are still terribly small and expensive to iterate. What does the world like in a week? A month? A year? How long before these models drift to their own languages? To their own set of morals? To their own alignment? None of these questions are answered and I'd rather stay at AGI-lit…

I also think it's moving the goalpost significantly. If you asked me what AGI looks like in 2024, I would have said "smarter on tasks that can be done via text than the average random human you'd meet in a NY bodega", and by that standard, it's long in the rear view mirror.

Now I think people are asking a different question, which is "better than any human at any task that can be done via text", which imo is superhuman, not artificial general intelligence.

Re: OpenAI begins rolling out GPT-6 Astra

#223

Post by famouswaffles »

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #216
famouswaffles wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>OTOH OpenAI have their own meaningless definition of AGI as "able to do most commercially valuable work" or somesuch, which I'm sure is not true, and is also not what I'd call AGI. It's not meaningless. Specifically it is - "highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work". In fact, it's one of the most meaningful definitions out there. >If it can't learn for itself, then it's cer…

> It's not meaningless. In fact, it's one of the more meaningful definitions out there. Well, it's commercially meaningful, but it's not meaningful it terms of how close we are to achieving human intelligence. But which one you care about is up to you. If you are all about the money and don't care about human intelligence then for sure go with OpenAI's definition.

It's a lot more than just commercially meaningful. Even if you don't care about money, "highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work" has a lot more weight on "how close we are to achieving human intelligence" than most of the 'AGI' thresholds I've seen yet.

Re: OpenAI begins rolling out GPT-6 Astra

#224

Post by AnodicElegy »

nicholask2010 wrote: post #189
AnodicElegy wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This stood out: "Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index v4.1.1 61.2" So on the Metacritic of LLM benchmarks, it's.. basically where everyone else is (except for Fable 5.1, which is a bit ahead).

Where did you see this? I haven't been able to find any benchmarks.

It was in the link in the parent of the thread to which I replied. But you can find it on Artificial Analysis's website now.

Re: OpenAI begins rolling out GPT-6 Astra

#225

Post by HarHarVeryFunny »

pixl97 wrote: post #221
HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ask 100 people what their definition of AGI is and you'll probably get 100 different answers. My definition is closer to DeepMind's "can do any [computer-based] task that a human can do", and certainly a human intern can learn on the job and do better on day #2 than day #1. Learning is basically THE hallmark of intelligence. Being able to learn from experience and use that to do better in the future. If you could som…

OK, let's say we get continuous learning today, what does tomorrow look like? I won't argue that AI can do some learning as context sizes are still terribly small and expensive to iterate. What does the world like in a week? A month? A year? How long before these models drift to their own languages? To their own set of morals? To their own alignment? None of these questions are answered and I'd rather stay at AGI-lit…

Yeah, I'm fascinated by AGI, but not very enthusiastic about it. I've yet to see anyone, notably not even the people trying to build it, articulate a future where it seems to be a net positive for society.

If it's a choice between everyone living on food stamps or reducing the infinite prime gap to 140, then I guess I'll be happy with a prime gap of whatever it was yesterday.

If/when we do eventually build a more animal-like true human level AGI - build a brain, not just a language model, then potentially we'd be able to build in some of the safeguards that millions of years of co-evolution have built into ourselves, but I expect that is still decades away, and then it'd be capable of doing even more jobs!

The best AI outcome I could wish for is where it is extremely heavily regulated, and AI replacing any human job paying under $1M/yr is banned.

Re: OpenAI begins rolling out GPT-6 Astra

#227

Post by HarHarVeryFunny »

jaggederest wrote: post #222
pixl97 wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, let's say we get continuous learning today, what does tomorrow look like? I won't argue that AI can do some learning as context sizes are still terribly small and expensive to iterate. What does the world like in a week? A month? A year? How long before these models drift to their own languages? To their own set of morals? To their own alignment? None of these questions are answered and I'd rather stay at AGI-lit…

I also think it's moving the goalpost significantly. If you asked me what AGI looks like in 2024, I would have said "smarter on tasks that can be done via text than the average random human you'd meet in a NY bodega", and by that standard, it's long in the rear view mirror. Now I think people are asking a different question, which is "better than any human at any task that can be done via text", which imo is superhum…

It's not moving the goalposts - it's just having a different goal in the first place. This has been Shane Legg and Demis Hassabis' definition of AGI since DeepMind was founded, or before (way before OpenAI appeared), and also for me the goal of AI has always been human level (really a human brain, complete with emotions, etc, but we can start with basic learning/prediction).

Re: OpenAI begins rolling out GPT-6 Astra

#229

Post by HarHarVeryFunny »

famouswaffles wrote: post #223
HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not meaningless. In fact, it's one of the more meaningful definitions out there. Well, it's commercially meaningful, but it's not meaningful it terms of how close we are to achieving human intelligence. But which one you care about is up to you. If you are all about the money and don't care about human intelligence then for sure go with OpenAI's definition.

It's a lot more than just commercially meaningful. Even if you don't care about money, "highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work" has a lot more weight on "how close we are to achieving human intelligence" than most of the 'AGI' thresholds I've seen yet.

Well, let's learn to walk first.

Right now we have just massively jagged intelligence that performs stunning feats in math and single-shotting three.js games, and falls flat on it's face in many every day scenarios.

And, it can't even learn.

Re: OpenAI begins rolling out GPT-6 Astra

#230

Post by jaggederest »

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #227
jaggederest wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also think it's moving the goalpost significantly. If you asked me what AGI looks like in 2024, I would have said "smarter on tasks that can be done via text than the average random human you'd meet in a NY bodega", and by that standard, it's long in the rear view mirror. Now I think people are asking a different question, which is "better than any human at any task that can be done via text", which imo is superhum…

It's not moving the goalposts - it's just having a different goal in the first place. This has been Shane Legg and Demis Hassabis' definition of AGI since DeepMind was founded, or before (way before OpenAI appeared), and also for me the goal of AI has always been human level (really a human brain, complete with emotions, etc, but we can start with basic learning/prediction).

I guess I fundamentally disagree, because on general knowledge they beat any human, and on processing speed they beat any human, and on problem solving likewise. I just don't see a domain besides "retain change over time" that they fail on, and that is something you can do in the system rather than the model - coding agents can and do build their own memory system and use it, like an amnestic human writing notes.

I think what I'm objecting to is the idea that if it can't do every task that every human can do better than any human, it's not AGI - I think we have to allow that this is a fundamentally different form of cognition, so requiring a 100% match feels uncharitable. Every human has cognitive gaps that AI doesn't have.

Post reply on HN