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

François Chollet: The Arc Prize and How We Get to AGI [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 230 posts

Re: François Chollet: The Arc Prize and How We Get to AGI [video]

#111

Post by kordlessagain »

TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #20
qoez wrote: post #4

I feel like I'm the only one who isn't convinced getting a high score on the ARC eval test means we have AGI. It's mostly about pattern matching (and some of it ambiguous even for humans what the actual true response aught to be). It's like how in humans there's lots of different 'types' of intelligence, and just overfitting on IQ tests doesn't in my mind convince me a person is actually that smart.

Getting a high score on ARC doesn't mean we have AGI and Chollet has always said as much AFAIK, it's meant to push the AI research space in a positive direction. Being able to solve ARC problems is probably a pre-requisite to AGI. It's a directional push into the fog of war, with the claim being that we should explore that area because we expect it's relevant to building AGI.

ARC is definitely about achieving AGI and it doesn't matter whether we "have" it or not right now. That is the goal:

> where he introduced the "Abstract and Reasoning Corpus for Artificial General Intelligence" (ARC-AGI) benchmark to measure intelligence

So, a high enough score is a threshold to claim AGI. And, if you use an LLM to work these types of problems, it becomes pretty clear that passing more tests indicates a level of "awareness" that goes beyond rational algorithms.

I thought I had seen everything until I started working on some of the problems with agents. I'm still sorta in awe about how the reasoning manifests. (And don't get me wrong, LLMs like Claude still go completely off the rails where even a less intelligent human would know better.)

Re: François Chollet: The Arc Prize and How We Get to AGI [video]

#113

Post by kordlessagain »

echelon wrote: post #108
TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting a high score on ARC doesn't mean we have AGI and Chollet has always said as much AFAIK, it's meant to push the AI research space in a positive direction. Being able to solve ARC problems is probably a pre-requisite to AGI. It's a directional push into the fog of war, with the claim being that we should explore that area because we expect it's relevant to building AGI.

My problem with AGI is the lack of a simple, concrete definition. Can we formalize it as giving out a task expressible in, say, n^m bytes of information that encodes a task of n^(m+q) real algorithmic and verification complexity -- then solving that task within a certain time, compute, and attempt bounds? Something that captures "the AI was able to unwind the underlying unspoken complexity of the novel problem". I fe…

After researching this a fair amount, my opinion is that consciousness/intelligence (can you have one without the other?) emerges from some sort of weird entropy exchange in domains in the brain. The theory goes that we aren't conscious, but we DO consciousness, sometimes. Maybe entropy, or the inverse of it, gives way to intelligence, somehow.

This entropy angle has real theoretical backing. Some researchers propose consciousness emerges from the brain's ability to integrate information across different scales and timeframes. This would essentially create temporary "islands of low entropy" in neural networks. Giulio Tononi's Integrated Information Theory suggests consciousness corresponds to a system's ability to generate integrated information, which relates to how it reduces uncertainty (entropy) about its internal states. Then there is Hammeroff and Penrose, which I commented about on here years ago and got blasted for it. Meh. I'm a learner, and I learn by entertaining truths. But I always remain critical of theories until I'm sold.

I'm not selling any of this as a truth, because the fact remains we have no idea what "consciousness" is. We have a better handle on "intelligence", but as others point out, most humans aren't that intelligent. They still manage to drive to the store and feed their dogs, however.

A lot of the current leading ARC solutions use random sampling, which sorta makes sense once you start thinking about having to handle all the different types of problems. At least it seems to be helping out in paring down the decision tree.

Re: François Chollet: The Arc Prize and How We Get to AGI [video]

#114

Post by ummonk »

adastra22 wrote: post #106
ummonk wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Being able to solve ARC problems is probably a pre-requisite to AGI." - is it? Humans have general intelligence and most can't solve the harder ARC problems.

They, and the other posters posting similar things, don't mean human-like intelligence, or even the rigorously defined solving of unconstrained problem spaces that originally defined Artificial General Intelligence (in contrast to "narrow" intelligence"). They mean an artificial god, and it has become a god of the gaps: we have made artificial general intelligence, and it is more human-like than god-like, and so to m…

Right, but there is a very clear term for that which they should be using: ASI

Re: François Chollet: The Arc Prize and How We Get to AGI [video]

#115

Post by kordlessagain »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #76
onemoresoop wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd say we're not far off. How are we not far off? How can LLMs generate goals and based on what?

You just train it on the goal. Then it has that goal. Alternately, you can train it on following a goal and then you have a system where you can specify a goal. At sufficient scale, a model will already contain goal-following algorithms because those help predict the next token when the model is basetrained on goal-following entities, ie. humans. Goal-driven RL then brings those algorithms to prominence.

Random goal use is showing to be more important than training. Although, last year someone trained on the fly during the competition, which is pretty awesome when you think about it.

Re: François Chollet: The Arc Prize and How We Get to AGI [video]

#116

Post by tippytippytango »

qoez wrote: post #4

I feel like I'm the only one who isn't convinced getting a high score on the ARC eval test means we have AGI. It's mostly about pattern matching (and some of it ambiguous even for humans what the actual true response aught to be). It's like how in humans there's lots of different 'types' of intelligence, and just overfitting on IQ tests doesn't in my mind convince me a person is actually that smart.

He’s playing the game. You have to say AGI is your goal to get attention. It’s just like the YouTube thumbnail game. You can hate it, but you still have to play if you want people to pay attention.

Re: François Chollet: The Arc Prize and How We Get to AGI [video]

#117

Post by smohare »

kordlessagain wrote: post #111
TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting a high score on ARC doesn't mean we have AGI and Chollet has always said as much AFAIK, it's meant to push the AI research space in a positive direction. Being able to solve ARC problems is probably a pre-requisite to AGI. It's a directional push into the fog of war, with the claim being that we should explore that area because we expect it's relevant to building AGI.

ARC is definitely about achieving AGI and it doesn't matter whether we "have" it or not right now. That is the goal: > where he introduced the "Abstract and Reasoning Corpus for Artificial General Intelligence" (ARC-AGI) benchmark to measure intelligence So, a high enough score is a threshold to claim AGI. And, if you use an LLM to work these types of problems, it becomes pretty clear that passing more tests indicate…

[dead]

Re: François Chollet: The Arc Prize and How We Get to AGI [video]

#118

Post by glenstein »

echelon wrote: post #108
TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting a high score on ARC doesn't mean we have AGI and Chollet has always said as much AFAIK, it's meant to push the AI research space in a positive direction. Being able to solve ARC problems is probably a pre-requisite to AGI. It's a directional push into the fog of war, with the claim being that we should explore that area because we expect it's relevant to building AGI.

My problem with AGI is the lack of a simple, concrete definition. Can we formalize it as giving out a task expressible in, say, n^m bytes of information that encodes a task of n^(m+q) real algorithmic and verification complexity -- then solving that task within a certain time, compute, and attempt bounds? Something that captures "the AI was able to unwind the underlying unspoken complexity of the novel problem". I fe…

>My problem with AGI is the lack of a simple, concrete definition.

You can't always start from definitions. There are many research areas where the object of research is to know something well enough that you could converge on such a thing as a definition, e.g. dark matter, consciousness, intelligence, colony collapse syndrome, SIDS. We nevertheless can progress in our understanding of them in a whole motley of strategic ways, by case studies that best exhibit salient properties, trace the outer boundaries of the problem space, track the central cluster of "family resemblances" that seem to characterize the problem, entertain candidate explanations that are closer or further away, etc. Essentially a practical attitude.

I don't doubt in principle that we could arrive at such a thing as a definition that satisfies most people, but I suspect you're more likely to have that at the end than the beginning.

Re: François Chollet: The Arc Prize and How We Get to AGI [video]

#119

Post by Bjorkbat »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #15
zamderax wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are allowed to evolve opinions. It seems to me he believes that a combination of transformer and program synthesis are key. The big unknown at the moment is how to do program search.

Absolutely. Presumably there is some specific considerations or evidence that helped him evolve his opinion. I would be interested in seeing a writeup about it. With him having been a very public advocate against AGI, a writeup of his evolution seems appropriate and would be very edifying for a lot of people.

I recall it as less an evolution and more a complete tonal shift the moment o3 was evaluated on ARC-AGI. I remember on Twitter Sam made some dumb post suggesting they had beaten the benchmark internally and Francois calling him out on his vagueposting. Soon as they publicly released the scores, it was like he was all-in on reasoning.

Which I have to admit I was kind of disappointed by.

Re: François Chollet: The Arc Prize and How We Get to AGI [video]

#120

Post by layer8 »

ltbarcly3 wrote: post #102

There is some kind of massive brigading happening on this thread. Lots of thoughtful comments are downmodded or flagged (including mine, which I thought was pretty thoughtful. I even said poop instead of shit.). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44492241 My comment was basically instantly flagged. I see at least 3 other flagged comments that I can't imagine deserve to be flagged.

You didn’t address anything from the actual talk.
Post reply on HN