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

Google DeepMind CEO says some form of AGI possible in a few years

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 388 posts

Re: Google DeepMind CEO says some form of AGI possible in a few years

#121

Post by red75prime »

marricks wrote: post #3

I really wonder what the next AI winter will be like. Edit: Perhaps OpenAI becomes a major tech player and we just see a cooling off of other AI investments as LLM becomes a known in terms of its strengths and weaknesses. Its abilities reach a natural limit which is still generally very useful. Or maybe folks realize the degree of lies/mistruths inherent in its content is actually unmanageable and can’t be improved.…

> I really wonder what the next AI winter will be like.

GPT-n writing "AI winter is coming" articles, while RecurrentGPT-n+1 helps with work on ContinualLearningRecurrentGPT-n+2.

Re: Google DeepMind CEO says some form of AGI possible in a few years

#122

Post by mypastself »

ftxbro wrote: post #32

I am curious to do a poll of what AGI means to each person. It stands for "Artificial General Intelligence" but some have different definitions. For some, it might mean any that is as capable as a normal human. For some, non-biological life axiomatically cannot become AGI. For some, it might require literal omniscience and omnipotence and accepting anything as AGI means, to them, that they are being told to worship i…

Yeah, even the linked article acknowledges the problem while defining AGI as a computer with “human-level cognitive abilities”, which is broad enough as to be borderline useless.

Whenever a major company references AGI, as is the case here, I mentally replace the term with “Skynet”, because I expect the statement’s aim is to instill fear.

If Google ever develops AGI, you can be sure they’ll call it something else.

Re: Google DeepMind CEO says some form of AGI possible in a few years

#123

Post by earthnail »

PheonixPharts wrote: post #41

As someone who has worked in the field of AI/ML for quite awhile now, the problem with current AGI predictions is ML hasn't done anything new since the 80s (or arguably earlier). At the end of the day all ML is using gradient descent to do some sort of non-linear projection of the data on to a latent space, then doing some relatively simple math in this latent space to perform some task. Personally I think the limits…

I disagree with you.

> Essentially all we've done is pushed the basic model proposed by linear regression to it's absolutely limits

No, we haven't pushed linear regression to its limits. If it was only linear regression, it wouldn't work. Neural networks need a non-linearity to model complex things.

The beauty is that given an infinite series of nonlinearities, one can model any mathematical function. In practice we found it takes much less than "infinite", a handful will already get you a long way.

A stack of this basic building block, as you describe it, is really all it takes - we know that mathematically already. The interesting question is: how complex are the functions we need to model? So if we create a neural network of a certain size, is that size large enough to model the problem space?

> However we are only near AGI if this is in fact how intelligence works (or can work) and I don't believe we've seen any evidence of this. And there are some very big assumptions baked into this approach.

I think ChatGPT is good evidence of this. What evidence do we have that this isn't how intelligence works?

Re: Google DeepMind CEO says some form of AGI possible in a few years

#124

Post by earthnail »

gwoolhurme wrote: post #64
useruser125524 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ultimately we're just a collection of atoms obeying the laws of physics, but reducing all the complexity that entails doesn't really accomplish anything

This is my frustration put really well. When people talk about how humans are also just a form of LLM (not that the above comment did exactly that). That might even be true, but simplifying things to that degree doesn't help actually discuss what is going on. The original comment is as far as I know correct... while I don't have a PhD some of my undergraduate work was in control theory and ML, and it works really wel…

You can look at very small creatures on earth and think "surely there is more to a human than to this ant". And sure, there is, but also, there isn't. Just as basic life evolves into more complex life, why shouldn't the underlying methods from the NASA in the late 70s evolve into ChatGPT and eventually AGI?

Simplifying things to this degree can show how you get from A to B.

Re: Google DeepMind CEO says some form of AGI possible in a few years

#125

Post by GaggiX »

PheonixPharts wrote: post #41

As someone who has worked in the field of AI/ML for quite awhile now, the problem with current AGI predictions is ML hasn't done anything new since the 80s (or arguably earlier). At the end of the day all ML is using gradient descent to do some sort of non-linear projection of the data on to a latent space, then doing some relatively simple math in this latent space to perform some task. Personally I think the limits…

Isn't intelligence an emergent behavior? We use gradient descent because it's faster than others techniques like evolution. Also aren't systems that play strategic game at the highest level already intelligent in their tasks?

Re: Google DeepMind CEO says some form of AGI possible in a few years

#126

Post by kranke155 »

earthnail wrote: post #123
PheonixPharts wrote: post #41

As someone who has worked in the field of AI/ML for quite awhile now, the problem with current AGI predictions is ML hasn't done anything new since the 80s (or arguably earlier). At the end of the day all ML is using gradient descent to do some sort of non-linear projection of the data on to a latent space, then doing some relatively simple math in this latent space to perform some task. Personally I think the limits…

I disagree with you. > Essentially all we've done is pushed the basic model proposed by linear regression to it's absolutely limits No, we haven't pushed linear regression to its limits. If it was only linear regression, it wouldn't work. Neural networks need a non-linearity to model complex things. The beauty is that given an infinite series of nonlinearities, one can model any mathematical function. In practice we…

Hallucinations are an indication that something is missing, surely?

Does chatGPT need a way to verify reality for itself to become truly intelligent ?

Re: Google DeepMind CEO says some form of AGI possible in a few years

#127

Post by charcircuit »

grumple wrote: post #65
sowbug wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Self-driving cars are colloquially held to a much higher standard than human drivers are. Nothing currently exists that meets that standard. But humans meet the GI standard of AGI. And strong evidence shows that humans exist. Thus, the standard for AGI is lower than the standard for self-driving cars. Existence of an AGI does not imply existence of self-driving cars. To put it another way: take the worst human driver…

Aren't the best self driving cars causing traffic jams in SF because they can't handle everyday tasks? And can any self driving car handle suboptimal environments like snow? Or just unmarked roads? Or... left turns in traffic?

Just because you can't handle every situation that could occur when driving it doesn't mean you don't have the ability to drive. I can't parallel park, but I would still consider myself able to drive. I make mistakes driving where I'm not supposed to yet I'm still a driver.

Re: Google DeepMind CEO says some form of AGI possible in a few years

#128

Post by goatlover »

earthnail wrote: post #123
PheonixPharts wrote: post #41

As someone who has worked in the field of AI/ML for quite awhile now, the problem with current AGI predictions is ML hasn't done anything new since the 80s (or arguably earlier). At the end of the day all ML is using gradient descent to do some sort of non-linear projection of the data on to a latent space, then doing some relatively simple math in this latent space to perform some task. Personally I think the limits…

I disagree with you. > Essentially all we've done is pushed the basic model proposed by linear regression to it's absolutely limits No, we haven't pushed linear regression to its limits. If it was only linear regression, it wouldn't work. Neural networks need a non-linearity to model complex things. The beauty is that given an infinite series of nonlinearities, one can model any mathematical function. In practice we…

> I think ChatGPT is good evidence of this. What evidence do we have that this isn't how intelligence works?

Animals have bodies and have to survive in an environment. They're not just sitting there waiting on a prompt to generate text. They do things in the real world. Language is later invention by one particular social animal which serves our needs to communicate, which is different than waiting on prompts.

Re: Google DeepMind CEO says some form of AGI possible in a few years

#129

Post by depr »

earthnail wrote: post #123
PheonixPharts wrote: post #41

As someone who has worked in the field of AI/ML for quite awhile now, the problem with current AGI predictions is ML hasn't done anything new since the 80s (or arguably earlier). At the end of the day all ML is using gradient descent to do some sort of non-linear projection of the data on to a latent space, then doing some relatively simple math in this latent space to perform some task. Personally I think the limits…

I disagree with you. > Essentially all we've done is pushed the basic model proposed by linear regression to it's absolutely limits No, we haven't pushed linear regression to its limits. If it was only linear regression, it wouldn't work. Neural networks need a non-linearity to model complex things. The beauty is that given an infinite series of nonlinearities, one can model any mathematical function. In practice we…

>I think ChatGPT is good evidence of this. What evidence do we have that this isn't how intelligence works?

People don't need the gigantic amount of input data that ChatGPT needs to learn. However I'm not sure what exactly "this" is you and GP are referring to, and it may be possible to improve existing ideas so that it works with less input data.

Re: Google DeepMind CEO says some form of AGI possible in a few years

#130

Post by janekm »

blagie wrote: post #22
majikaja wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>we just see a cooling off of other endeavors as LLM becomes a known in terms of its strengths and weaknesses and it’s abilities reach a natural limit which is still general useful. This is my prediction If the training set is just the internet, it will be not much different than someone who spends all their lives in their room in front of their computer.

I don't think that's a limit. If you give me $10M and 5 years, I can tell you a half-dozen ways to train models better than GPT4, primarily by having them do richer tasks than text completion, by having them evaluate themselves in richer ways, by having workflows around them, and by having shared models perform multiple types of tasks (e.g. text, image, controls, etc.). It's not that I'm especially smart; many others…

Absolutely. There's no doubt teams already training multi-modal models on subsets of the videos in YouTube (there's already published examples training on Minecraft videos).

There's even tons of POV videos now literally showing human life experience in many scenarios: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipe9xJCfuTM

There's enough in there to approximate the sensorial inputs that humans get through their life.

Post reply on HN